problem solving in small group communication

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

11 Engaging in Group Problem-Solving

Learning Objectives

Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems
Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process

Although the steps of problem-solving and decision-making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss group problem-solving and important steps in the process.

Group Problem Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.

According to Adams and Galanes (2009), problems of all sorts have three common components:

An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
The desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situations. These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision-making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, the number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group member familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing difficult and complex tasks to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare their house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what you learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem-solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem-solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage:

What is the current difficulty?
How did we come to know that the difficulty exists?
Who/what is involved?
Why is it meaningful/urgent/important?
What have the effects been so far?
What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification?

At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step, a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps.

To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to a more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. This is where brainstorming techniques to enhance creativity may be useful to the group (see earlier chapter on “Enhancing Creativity”). Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, group members must generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink.

Two people stand by a whiteboard with diagrams on it

For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan non-government employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Conflict may emerge during this step of problem-solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision-making is part of the larger process of problem-solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem-solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use (see earlier chapter on “Decision-Making in Groups”). For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

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

Six Thinking Hats Method

Edward de Bono developed the Six Thinking Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in problem-solving and decision-making training in business and professional contexts (de Bono, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

White hat. Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then neutrally processes that information.
Red hat. Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
Black hat. Critical—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
Yellow hat. Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
Green hat. Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
Blue hat. Process—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

This problem-solving method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role-playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Review & Reflection Questions

What are the three common components of a problem? Based on these, what problems have you encountered in your group?
What are the five steps of the reflective thinking process?
What challenges might you face during the process and what strategies could you use to address those challenges?
Adams, K., & Galanes, G. G. (2009). Communicating in groups: Applications and skills (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Bormann, E. G., & Nancy C. Bormann, N. C. (1988). Effective small group communication ( 4th ed). Burgess CA.
de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Little Brown.

Authors & Attribution

The chapter is adapted from “ Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups ” in Communication in the Real World from the University of Minnesota. The book was adapted from a work produced and distributed under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA) by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution. This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license .

involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal

a five step process to aid in group problem solving involving (1) defining the problem, (2) analyzing the problem, (3) generating possible solutions, (4) evaluating solutions, and (5) implementing and assessing the solution

a method of problem-solving developed by Edward de Bono that aims to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view

Small Group Communication Copyright © 2020 by Jasmine R. Linabary, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Conflict and Problem Solving in Small Groups

38 Group Problem Solving

eCampusOntario

illustration of a series of black question marks with one bright red one

Source: pixabay.com

While there are many ways to approach a problem, the American educational philosopher John Dewey’s reflective thinking sequence has stood the test of time. This seven-step process (Adler, 1996 ) has produced positive results and serves as a handy organizational structure. If you are member of a group that needs to solve a problem and don’t know where to start, consider the seven simple steps illustrated in Figure 11.2 below:

image of a person climbing a set of stairs with the steps labeled as cited in the heading 3 sections that follow

Figure 11.2 . Problem-solving process .

Define the Problem

If you don’t know what the problem is, how do you know you can solve it? Defining the problem allows the group to set boundaries of what the problem is and what it is not and to begin to formalize a description or definition of the scope, size, or extent of the challenge the group will address. A problem that is too broadly defined can overwhelm the group. If the problem is too narrowly defined, important information will be missed or ignored.

In the following example, there is a web-based company called Favourites that needs to increase its customer base and ultimately sales. A problem-solving group has been formed, and they start by formulating a working definition of the problem.

Example problems:

Too broad: “Sales are off, our numbers are down, and we need more customers.”

More precise: “Sales have been slipping incrementally for six of the past nine months and are significantly lower than a seasonally adjusted comparison to last year. Overall, this loss represents a 4.5 percent reduction in sales from the same time last year. However, when we break it down by product category, sales of our nonedible products have seen a modest but steady increase, while sales of edibles account for the drop off and we need to halt the decline.”

Analyze the Problem

The problem-solving group Kevin, Mariah, and Suri analyze the problem and begin to gather information to learn more. The problem is complex and requires more than one area of expertise. Why do nonedible products continue selling well? What is it about the edibles that is turning customers off?

Kevin is responsible for customer resource management. He is involved with the customer from the point of initial contact through purchase and delivery. Most of the interface is automated in the form of an online “basket model,” where photographs and product descriptions are accompanied by “buy it” buttons. He is available during normal working business hours for live chat and voice chat if needed, and customers are invited to request additional information. Most Favourites customers do not access this service, but Kevin is kept quite busy, as he also handles returns and complaints. Because Kevin believes that superior service retains customers while attracting new ones, he is always interested in better ways to serve the customer. Looking at edibles and nonedibles, he will study the cycle of customer service and see if there are any common points—from the main webpage, through the catalog, to the purchase process, and to returns—at which customers abandon the sale. He has existing customer feedback loops with end-of-sale surveys, but most customers decline to take the survey and there is currently no incentive to participate.

Mariah is responsible for products and purchasing. She wants to offer the best products at the lowest price, and to offer new products that are unusual, rare, or exotic. She regularly adds new products to the Favourites catalog and culls underperformers. Right now she has the data on every product and its sales history, but it is a challenge to represent it. She will analyze current sales data and produce a report that specifically identifies how each product—edible and nonedible—is performing. She wants to highlight “winners” and “losers” but also recognizes that today’s “losers” may be the hit of tomorrow. It is hard to predict constantly changing tastes and preferences, but that is part of her job. It’s not all science, and it’s not all art. She has to have an eye for what will catch on tomorrow while continuing to provide what is hot today.

Suri is responsible for data management at Favourites . She gathers, analyzes, and presents information gathered from the supply chain, sales, and marketing. She works with vendors to make sure products are available when needed, makes sales predictions based on past sales history, and assesses the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.

The problem-solving group members already have certain information on hand. They know that customer retention is one contributing factor. Attracting new customers is a constant goal, but they are aware of the well-known principle that it takes more effort to attract new customers than to keep existing ones. Thus, it is important to ensure a quality customer service experience for existing customers and encourage them to refer friends. The group needs to determine how to promote this favourable customer behaviour.

Another contributing factor seems to be that customers often abandon the shopping cart before completing a purchase, especially when purchasing edibles. The group members need to learn more about why this is happening.

Establish Criteria

Establishing the criteria for a solution is the next step. At this point, information is coming in from diverse perspectives, and each group member has contributed information from their perspective, even though there may be several points of overlap.

Kevin: Customers who complete the postsale survey indicate that they want to know (1) what is the estimated time of delivery, (2) why a specific item was not in stock and when it will be available, and (3) why their order sometimes arrives with less than a complete order, with some items back-ordered, without prior notification.

He notes that a very small percentage of customers complete the postsale survey, and the results are far from scientific. He also notes that it appears the interface is not capable of cross-checking inventory to provide immediate information concerning back orders, so that the customer “buys it” only to learn several days later that it was not in stock. This seems to be especially problematic for edible products, because people may tend to order them for special occasions like birthdays and anniversaries. But we don’t really know this for sure because of the low participation in the postsale survey.

Mariah: There are four edible products that frequently sell out. So far, we haven’t been able to boost the appeal of other edibles so that people would order them as a second choice when these sales leaders aren’t available. We also have several rare, exotic products that are slow movers. They have potential, but currently are underperformers.

Suri: We know from a postal code analysis that most of our customers are from a few specific geographic areas associated with above-average incomes. We have very few credit cards declined, and the average sale is over $100. Shipping costs represent on average 8 percent of the total sales cost. We do not have sufficient information to produce a customer profile. There is no specific point in the purchase process where basket abandonment tends to happen; it happens fairly uniformly at all steps.

Consider Possible Solutions to the Problem

The group has listened to each other and now starts to brainstorm ways to address the challenges they have addressed while focusing resources on those solutions that are more likely to produce results.

Kevin: Is it possible for our programmers to create a cross-index feature, linking the product desired with a report of how many are in stock? I’d like the customer to know right away whether it is in stock, or how long they may have to wait. As another idea, is it possible to add incentives to the purchase cycle that won’t negatively impact our overall profit? I’m thinking a small volume discount on multiple items, or perhaps free shipping over a specific dollar amount.

Mariah: I recommend we hold a focus group where customers can sample our edible products and tell us what they like best and why. When the best sellers are sold out, could we offer a discount on related products to provide an instant alternative? We might also cull the underperforming products with a liquidation sale to generate interest.

Suri: If we want to know more about our customers, we need to give them an incentive to complete the postsale survey. How about a 5 percent off coupon code for the next purchase to get them to return and to help us better identify our customer base? We may also want to build in a customer referral rewards program, but it all takes better data in to get results out. We should also explore the supply side of the business by getting a more reliable supply of the leading products and trying to get discounts that are more advantageous from our suppliers, especially in the edible category.

Decide on a Solution

Kevin, Mariah, and Suri may want to implement all the solution strategies, but they do not have the resources to do them all. They’ll complete a cost-benefit analysis, which ranks each solution according to its probable impact.

Implement the Solution

Kevin is faced with the challenge of designing the computer interface without incurring unacceptable costs. He strongly believes that the interface will pay for itself within the first year—or, to put it more bluntly, that Favourites’ declining sales will get worse if the website does not have this feature soon. He asks to meet with top management to get budget approval and secures their agreement, on one condition: he must negotiate a compensation schedule with the information technology consultants that includes delayed compensation in the form of bonuses after the feature has been up and running successfully for six months.

Mariah knows that searching for alternative products is a never-ending process, but it takes time and the company needs results. She decides to invest time evaluating products that competing companies currently offer, especially in the edible category, on the theory that customers who find their desired items sold out on the Favourites website may have been buying alternative products elsewhere instead of choosing an alternative from Favourites’ product lines.

Suri decides to approach the vendors of the four frequently sold-out products and ask point blank, “What would it take to get you to produce these items more reliably in greater quantities?” By opening the channel of communication with these vendors, she is able to motivate them to make modifications that will improve the reliability and quantity. She also approaches the vendors of the less popular products with a request for better discounts in return for their cooperation in developing and test-marketing new products.

Follow Up on the Solution

Kevin: After several beta tests, the cross-index feature was implemented and has been in place for thirty days. Now customers see either “in stock” or “available [mo/da/yr]” in the shopping basket. As expected, Kevin notes a decrease in the number of chat and phone inquiries to the effect of, “Will this item arrive before my wife’s birthday?” However, he notes an increase in inquiries asking, “Why isn’t this item in stock?” It is difficult to tell whether customer satisfaction is higher overall.

Mariah: In exploring the merchandise available from competing merchants, she got several ideas for modifying Favourites’ product line to offer more flavors and other variations on popular edibles. Working with vendors, she found that these modifications cost very little. Within the first thirty days of adding these items to the product line, sales are up. Mariah believes these additions also serve to enhance the Favourites brand identity, but she has no data to back this up.

Suri: So far, the vendors supplying the four top-selling edibles have fulfilled their promise of increasing quantity and reliability. However, three of the four items have still sold out, raising the question of whether Favourites needs to bring in one or more additional vendors to produce these items. Of the vendors with which Favourites asked to negotiate better discounts, some refused, and two of these were “stolen” by a competing merchant so that they no longer sell to Favourites . In addition, one of the vendors that agreed to give a better discount was unexpectedly forced to cease operations for several weeks because of a fire.

This scenario allows us to see that the problem may have several dimensions as well as solutions, that resources can be limited, and not every solution is successful. Even though the problem is not immediately resolved, the group problem-solving pattern and communication among the group members serves as a useful guide through the problem-solving process.

Small Group Problem Solving Examples

Washed ashore.

Tiny Houses

New York City Trash

The Crisis of Leadership

Share This Book

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

11.1 Group Problem-Solving

Learning objective.

Identify and describe how to implement seven steps for group problem-solving.

No matter who you are or where you live, problems are an inevitable part of life. This is true for groups as well as for individuals. Some groups—especially work teams—are formed specifically to solve problems. Other groups encounter problems for a wide variety of reasons. Within a family group, a problem might be that a daughter or son wants to get married and the parents do not approve of the marriage partner. In a work group, a problem might be that some workers are putting in more effort than others, yet achieving poorer results. Regardless of the problem, having the resources of a group can be an advantage, as different people can contribute different ideas for how to reach a satisfactory solution.

Once a group encounters a problem, the questions that come up range from “Where do we start?” to “How do we solve it?” While there are many ways to approach a problem, the American educational philosopher John Dewey’s reflective thinking sequence has stood the test of time. This seven step process Adler, R. (1996). Communicating at work: principles and practices for business and the professions. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. has produced positive results and serves as a handy organizational structure. If you are member of a group that needs to solve a problem and don’t know where to start, consider these seven simple steps McLean, S. (2005). The basics of interpersonal communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. :

Define the problem.
Analyze the problem.
Establish criteria.
Consider possible solutions.
Decide on a solution.
Implement the solution.
Follow up on the solution.

Let’s discuss each step in detail.

Define the Problem

If you don’t know what the problem is, how can you know you’ve solved it? Defining the problem allows the group to set boundaries of what the problem is and what it is not; and begin to formalize a description or definition of the scope, size, or extent of the challenge the group will address. A problem that is too broadly defined can overwhelm the group. If the problem is too narrowly defined, important information will be missed or ignored.

In the following example, we have a web-based company called Favorites which needs to increase its customer base and ultimately sales. A problem-solving group has been formed, and they start by formulating a working definition of the problem.

Too Broad: “Sales are off, our numbers are down, and we need more customers.”
More Precise: “Sales have been slipping incrementally for 6 of the past 9 months and are significantly lower than a seasonally adjusted comparison to last year. Overall this loss represents a 4.5% reduction in sales from the same time last year. However, when we break it down by product category, sales of our non-edible products have seen a modest but steady increase, while sales of edibles account for the drop off and we need to halt the decline.”

Analyze the Problem

Now the group analyzes the problem, trying to gather information and learn more. The problem is complex and requires more than one area of expertise. Why do non-edible products continue selling well? What is it about the edibles that is turning customers off? Let’s meet our problem-solvers at Favorites.

Kevin is responsible for customer resource management. He is involved with the customer from the point of initial contact through purchase and delivery. Most of the interface is automated in the form of an online “basket model,” where photographs and product descriptions are accompanied by “Buy It” buttons. He is available during normal working business hours for live chat and voice interface if needed, and customers are invited to request additional information. Most Favorites customers do not access this service, but Kevin is kept quite busy, as he also handles returns and complaints. Because Kevin believes that superior service retains customers while attracting new ones, he is always interested in better ways to serve the customer. Looking at edibles and non-edibles, he will study the cycle of customer service and see if there are any common points, from the main webpage through the catalog to the purchase process to returns, at which customers abandon the sale. He has existing customer feedback loops with end-of-sale surveys, but most customers decline to take the survey and there is currently no incentive to participate.

Mariah is responsible for products and purchasing. She wants to offer the best products at the lowest price, and to offer new products that are unusual, rare, or exotic. She regularly adds new products to the Favorites catalog and culls underperformers. Right now she has the data on every product and its sales history, but it is a challenge to represent it. She will analyze current sales data and produce a report that specifically identifies how each product, edible and non-edible, is performing. She wants to highlight “winners” and “losers” but also recognizes that today’s “losers” may be the hit of tomorrow. It is hard to predict constantly changing tastes and preferences, but that is part of her job. It’s not all science, and it’s not all art. She has to have an eye for what will catch on tomorrow while continuing to provide what is hot today.

Suri is responsible for data management at Favorites. She gathers, analyzes, and presents information gathered from the supply chain, sales, and marketing. She works with vendors to make sure products are available when needed, makes sales predictions based on past sales history, and assesses the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.

Establish Criteria

Kevin: Customers who complete the post-sale survey indicate that they want to know 1) what is the estimated time of delivery, 2) why a specific item was not in stock and when it will be, and 3) why their order sometimes arrives with less than a complete order, with some items back-ordered, without prior notification.

He notes that a very small percentage of customers complete the post-sale survey, and the results are far from scientific. He also notes that it appears the interface is not capable of cross-checking inventory to provide immediate information concerning back orders, so that the customer “buys it” only to learn several days later that it was not in stock. This seems to be especially problematic for edible products, because people may tend to order them for special occasions like birthdays and anniversaries. But we don’t really know this for sure because of the low participation in the post-sale survey.

Suri: We know from a zip code analysis that most of our customers are from a few specific geographic areas associated with above-average incomes. We have very few credit cards declined, and the average sale is over $100. Shipping costs represent on average 8% of the total sales cost. We do not have sufficient information to produce a customer profile. There is no specific point in the purchase process where basket abandonment tends to happen; it happens fairly uniformly at all steps.

Consider Possible Solutions to the Problem

The group has listened to each other and now starts to brainstorm ways to address the challenges they have identified while focusing resources on those solutions that are more likely to produce results.

Suri: If we want to know more about our customers, we need to give them an incentive to complete the post-sale survey. How about a five percent off coupon code for the next purchase, to get them to return and to help us better identify our customer base? We may also want to build in a customer referral rewards program, but it all takes better data in to get results out. We should also explore the supply side of the business and see if we can get a more reliable supply of the leading products, and try to get more advantageous discounts from our suppliers, especially in the edible category.

Decide on a Solution

Kevin, Mariah, and Suri may want to implement all of the solution strategies, but they do not have the resources to do them all. They’ll complete a cost/benefit analysis , which ranks each solution according to its probable impact. The analysis is shown in Table 11.1 “Cost/Benefit Analysis”.

Table 11.1 Cost/Benefit Analysis

Now that the options have been presented with their costs and benefits, it is easier for the group to decide which courses of action are likely to yield the best outcomes. The analysis helps the group members to see beyond the immediate cost of implementing a given solution. For example, Kevin’s suggestion of offering free shipping won’t cost Favorites much money, but it also may not pay off in customer goodwill. And even though Mariah’s suggestion of having a focus group might sound like a good idea, it will be expensive and its benefits are questionable.

A careful reading of the analysis indicates that Kevin’s best suggestion is to integrate the cross-index feature in the ordering process so that customers can know immediately whether an item is in stock or on back order. Of Mariah’s suggestions, searching for alternative products is probably the most likely to benefit Favorites. And Suri’s two supply-side suggestions are likely to result in positive outcomes.

Implement the Solution

Kevin is faced with the challenge of designing the computer interface without incurring unacceptable costs. He strongly believes that the interface will pay for itself within the first year—or, to put if more bluntly, that Favorites’ declining sales will get worse if the website does not soon have this feature. He asks to meet with top management to get budget approval and secures their agreement, on one condition: He must negotiate a compensation schedule with the Information Technology consultants that includes delayed compensation in the form of bonuses after the feature has been up and running successfully for six months.

Mariah knows that searching for alternative products is a never-ending process, but it takes time and the company needs results. She decides to invest time evaluating products that competing companies currently offer, especially in the edible category, on the theory that customers who find their desired items sold out on the Favorites website may have been buying alternative products elsewhere instead of choosing an alternative from Favorites’ product lines.

Suri decides to approach the vendors of the four frequently sold-out products and ask point blank: “What would it take to get you to produce these items more reliably in greater quantities?” By opening the channel of communication with these vendors, she is able to motivate them to make modifications that will improve the reliability and quantity. She also approaches the vendors of the less popular products with a request for better discounts in return for cooperation in developing and test-marketing new products.

Follow up on the Solution

Kevin: After several beta tests, the cross-index feature was implemented and has been in place for 30 days. Now customers see either “In stock” or “Available [mo/da/yr]” in the shopping basket. As expected, Kevin notes a decrease in the number of chat and phone inquiries to the effect of, “Will this item arrive before my wife’s birthday?” However, he notes an increase in inquiries asking “Why isn’t this item in stock?” It is difficult to tell whether customer satisfaction is higher overall.

Mariah: In exploring the merchandise available from competing merchants, she got several ideas for modifying Favorites’ product line to offer more flavors and other variations on popular edibles. Working with vendors, she found that these modifications cost very little. Within the first 30 days of adding these items to the product line, sales are up. Mariah believes these additions also serve to enhance the Favorites brand identity, but she has no data to back this up.

Suri: So far, the vendors supplying the four top-selling edibles have fulfilled their promise of increasing quantity and reliability. However, three of the four items have still sold out, raising the question of whether Favorites needs to bring in one or more additional vendors to produce these items. Of the vendors with which Favorites asked to negotiate better discounts, some refused, and two of these were “stolen” by a competing merchant so that they no longer sell to Favorites. In addition, one of the vendors that agreed to give a better discount was unexpectedly forced to cease operations for several weeks because of a fire.

This scenario allows us to see the problem may have many dimensions, and may have several solutions, but resources can be limited and not every solution is successful. Even though the problem is not immediately resolved, the group problem-solving pattern serves as a useful guide through the problem-solving process.

Key Takeaway

Group problem-solving can be an orderly process when it is broken down into seven specific stages.
Think of a problem encountered in the past by a group of which you are a member. How did the group solve the problem? How satisfactory was the solution? Discuss your results with your classmates.
Consider again the problem you described in Exercise #1. In view of the seven-step framework, which steps did the group utilize? Would following the full seven-step framework have been helpful? Discuss your opinion with a classmate.
Research one business that you would like to know more about and see if you can learn about how they communicate in groups and teams Compare your results with those of classmates.
Think of a decision you will be making some time in the near future. Apply the cost/benefit analysis framework to your decision. Do you find this method helpful? Discuss your results with classmates.

11.2 Group Decision-Making

Learning objectives.

Define decision-making and distinguish between decision-making and problem-solving.
Describe five methods of group decision-making.
Identify six guidelines for consensus decision-making.
Define autocratic, democratic, and participative decision-making styles and place them within the Tannenbaum-Schmidt continuum.

Life is the sum of all your choices.

Albert Camus

Simply put, decision-making is the process of choosing among options and arriving at a position, judgment, or action. It usually answers a “wh-” question—i.e., what, who, where, or when?—or perhaps a “how” question.

A group may, of course, make a decision in order to solve a problem. For instance, a group of students might discover halfway through a project that some of its members are failing to contribute to the required work. They might then decide to develop a written timeline and a set of deadlines for itself if it believes that action will lead them out of their difficulty.

Not every group decision, however, will be in response to a problem. Many decisions relate to routine logistical matters such as when and where to schedule an event or how to reach someone who wasn’t able to make it to a meeting. Thus, decision-making differs from problem-solving.

Any decision-making in a group, even about routine topics, is significant. Why? Because decision-making, like problem-solving, results in a change in a group’s status, posture, or stature. Such change, in turn, requires energy and attention on the part of a group in order for the group to progress easily into a new reality. Things will be different in the group once a problem has been solved or a decision has been reached, and group members will need to adjust.

Methods of Reaching Decisions

Research does indicate that groups generate more ideas and make more accurate decisions on matters for which a known preferred solution exists, but they also operate more slowly than individuals. Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Random House. Under time pressure and other constraints, some group leaders exercise their power to make a decision unilaterally —alone—because they’re willing to sacrifice a degree of accuracy for the sake of speed. Sometimes this behavior turns out to be wise; sometimes it doesn’t.

Assuming that a group determines that it must reach a decision together on some matter, rather than deferring to the will of a single person, it can proceed according to several methods. Parker and Hoffman Parker, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Meeting excellence: 33 tools to lead meetings that get results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. , along with Hartley and Dawson Hartley, P., & Dawson, M. (2010). Success in groupwork. New York: St. Martin’s Press. , place decision-making procedures in several categories. Here is a synthesis of their views of how decision-making can take place:

A group may conduct a discussion in which members express views and identify alternatives but then reach no decision and take no action. When people go their own ways after such a “ plop ,” things sometimes take care of themselves, and the lack of a decision causes no difficulties. On the other hand, if a group ignores or postpones a decision which really needs attention, its members may confront tougher decisions later—some of which may deal with problems brought about by not addressing a topic when it was at an early stage.

Delegation to an expert.

A group may not be ready to make a decision at a given time, either because it lacks sufficient information or is experiencing unresolved conflict among members with differing views. In such a situation, the group may not want to simply drop the matter and move on. Instead, it may turn to one of its members who everyone feels has the expertise to choose wisely among the alternatives that the group is considering. The group can either ask the expert to come back later with a final proposal or simply allow the person to make the decision alone after having gathered whatever further information he or she feels is necessary.

Group members may shift their individual stances regarding a question by “splitting the difference” to reach a “middle ground.” This technique tends to work most easily if numbers are involved. For instance, a group trying to decide how much money to spend on a gift for a departing member might ask everyone for a preferred amount and agree to spend whatever is computed by averaging those amounts.

If you need to be quick and definitive in making a decision, voting is probably the best method. Everyone in mainstream American society is familiar with the process, for one thing, and its outcome is inherently clear and obvious. A majority vote requires that more than half of a group’s members vote for a proposal, whereas a proposal subject to a two-thirds vote will not pass unless twice as many members show support as those who oppose it.

Voting is essentially a win/lose activity. You can probably remember a time when you or someone else in a group composed part of a strong and passionate minority whose desires were thwarted because of the results of a vote. How much commitment did you feel to support the results of that vote?

Voting does offer a quick and simple way to reach decisions, but it works better in some situations than in others. If the members of a group see no other way to overcome a deadlock, for instance, voting may make sense. Likewise, very large groups and those facing serious time constraints may see advantages to voting. Finally, the efficiency of voting is appealing when it comes to making routine or noncontroversial decisions that need only to be officially approved.

In consensus decision-making, group members reach a resolution which all of the members can support as being acceptable as a means of accomplishing some mutual goal even though it may not be the preferred choice for everyone. In common use, “consensus” can range in meaning from unanimity to a simple majority vote. In public policy facilitation and multilateral international negotiations, however, the term refers to a general agreement reached after discussions and consultations, usually without voting. “consensus”. (2002). In Dictionary of Conflict Resolution, Wiley . Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/

Consensus should not be confused with unanimity , which means only that no one has explicitly stated objections to a proposal or decision. Although unanimity can certainly convey an accurate perspective of a group’s views at times, groupthink also often leads to unanimous decisions. Therefore, it’s probably wise to be cautious when a group of diverse people seems to have formed a totally unified block with respect to choices among controversial alternatives.

When a consensus decision is reached through full interchange of views and is then adopted in good faith by all parties to a discussion, it can energize and motivate a group. Besides avoiding the win/lose elements intrinsic to voting, it converts each member’s investment in a decision into a stake in preserving and promoting the decision after it has been agreed upon.

Guidelines for Seeking Consensus

How can a group actually go about working toward consensus? Here are some guidelines for the process:

First, be sure everyone knows the definition of consensus and is comfortable with observing them. For many group members, this may mean suspending judgment and trying something they’ve never done before. Remind people that consensus requires a joint dedication to moving forward toward improvement in and by the group.

Second, endeavor to solicit participation by every member of the group. Even the naturally quietest person should be actively “polled” from time to time for his or her perspectives. In fact, it’s a good idea to take special pains to ask for varied viewpoints when discussion seems to be stalled or contentious.

Third, listen honestly and openly to each group member’s viewpoints. Attempt to seek and gather information from others. Do your best to subdue your emotions and your tendency to judge and evaluate.

Fourth, be patient. To reach consensus often takes much more time than voting would. A premature “agreement” reached because people give in to speed things up or avoid conflict is likely later to weaken or fall apart.

Fifth, always look for mutually acceptable ways to make it through challenging circumstances. Don’t resort to chance mechanisms like flipping a coin, and don’t trade decisions arbitrarily just so that things come out equally for people who remain committed to opposing views.

Sixth, resolve gridlock earnestly. Stop and ask, “Have we really identified every possible feasible way that our group might act?” If members of a group simply can’t agree on one alternative, see if they can all find and accept a next-best option. Then be sure to request an explicit statement from them that they are prepared to genuinely commit themselves to that option.

One variation on consensus decision-making calls upon a group’s leader to ask its members, before initiating a discussion, to agree to a deadline and a “safety valve.” The deadline would be a time by which everyone in the group feels they need to have reached a decision. The “safety valve” would be a statement that any member can veto the will of the rest of the group to act in a certain way, but only if he or she takes responsibility for moving the group forward in some other positive direction.

Although consensus entails full participation and assent within a group, it usually can’t be reached without guidance from a leader. One college president we knew was a master at escorting his executive team to consensus. Without coercing or rushing them, he would regularly involve them all in discussions and lead their conversations to a point at which everyone was nodding in agreement, or at least conveying acceptance of a decision. Rather than leaving things at that point, however, the president would generally say, “We seem to have reached a decision to do XYZ. Is there anyone who objects?” Once people had this last opportunity to add further comments of their own, the group could move forward with a sense that it had a common vision in mind.

Consensus decision-making is easiest within groups whose members know and respect each other, whose authority is more or less evenly distributed, and whose basic values are shared. Some charitable and religious groups meet these conditions and have long been able to use consensus decision-making as a matter of principle. The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, began using consensus as early as the 17 th century. Its affiliated international service agency, the American Friends Service Committee, employs the same approach. The Mennonite Church has also long made use of consensus decision-making.

Decision-Making by Leaders

People in the business world often need to make decisions in groups composed of their associates and employees. Take the case of a hypothetical businessperson, Kerry Cash.

Kerry owns and manages Wenatcheese, a shop which sells gourmet local and imported cheese. Since opening five years ago, the business has overcome the challenge of establishing itself and has built a solid clientele. Sales have tripled. Two full-time and four part-time employees—all productive, reliable, and customer-friendly—have made the store run efficiently and bolstered its reputation.

Now, with Christmas and the New Year coming, Kerry wants to decide, “Shall I open another shop in the spring?” Because the year-end rush is on, there’s not a lot of time to weigh pros and cons.

As the diagram indicates, many managers in Kerry’s situation employ two means to make decisions like this: intuition and analysis. They’ll feel their gut instinct, analyze appropriate financial facts, or do a little bit of both.

Unfortunately, this kind of dualistic decision-making approach restricts an individual leader’s options. It doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the group environment. It also fails to fully exploit the power and relevance of other people’s knowledge.

Too much feeling may produce arbitrary outcomes. And, as the management theorist Peter Drucker observed, too much fact can create stagnation and “ analysis paralysis ”: “(A)n overload of information, that is, anything much beyond what is truly needed, leads to information blackout. It does not enrich, but impoverishes.” Drucker, P.F. (1993). The effective executive. New York: Harperbusiness.

Fortunately, a couple of authorities wrote an article in 1973 which can help members of groups assess and strengthen the quality of their decision-making Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. (1973, May-June). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 3–11. Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt were those authorities. Their article so appealed to American readers that more than one million reprints eventually sold.

The Tannnenbaum-Schmidt Continuum

Kerry Cash, wondering whether to open another Wenatcheese outlet, can refer to the Tannenbaum-Schmidt model in Table 11.2 “Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum” to identify a spectrum of ways to resolve the question:

Table 11.2 Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum

Let’s take a look at the components of this continuum, from left to right. First, we have two autocratic options:

OPTION ONE: Pure announcement. “All right, folks, I’ve decided we’re going to open a new shop in Dryden over Memorial Day weekend.”
OPTION TWO: “Selling”. “I’d like us to open a new shop in Dryden. I have five reasons. Here they are…”

Next, three democratic options are available:

OPTION THREE: Presentation with questions. “I’ve decided we’ll open a new shop in Dryden. What would you like to know about the plan?”
OPTION FOUR: Tentative decision. “I want to open a new shop in Dryden. Do you have any observations or questions about this possibility?”
OPTION FIVE: Soliciting suggestions. “I think we’re in a position to open a new shop. Dryden seems like the best location, but I’d also consider Cashmere or Leavenworth or Okanogan. I’ll decide which way to go after you give me your thoughts.”

Finally, two participative kinds of approaches present themselves:

OPTION SIX: Limited group autonomy. “I want to open a new shop in either Dryden, Cashmere, or Leavenworth sometime between Easter and Independence Day. Talk it over and let me know what we should do.”
OPTION SEVEN: Full group autonomy. “I’m willing to establish a new shop if you’d like. Let me know by two weeks from now whether you want to do that, and if so, where and when.”

Of course, many decisions embody more complications and include more details than Kerry Cash’s. Some are related to people: Shall we bring more people into the group? If we do, how many should be full-fledged and how many should be temporary or provisional? Or do we need to reduce our number of members?

Other decisions depend on financial variables and constraints: Can we trust the economy enough to invest in new equipment? Do we have time to develop and promote any new ideas?

The Tannenbaum-Schmidt model doesn’t tell us how to choose between its own options. Tannenbaum and Schmidt, however, did offer some advice on this score. These are some topics they suggested that leaders address as they decide where to position themselves on the continuum:

THE ORGANIZATION. What kind is it? Is it a new, or is it relatively solid and secure?
THE PEOPLE. How mature are they? How experienced? How motivated?
THE PROBLEM OR DECISION. How intricate is it? What kind of expertise is required to solve it?
TIME. What deadlines, if any, do we face? Is there enough time to involve as many people as we’d like?

Intel Corporation actually identifies in advance of its meetings the kind of decision-making that will be associated with each question or topic (( Matson, E. (1996, April-May)). The seven sins of deadly meetings. Fast company , 122. The four categories it uses resemble some of the components of the Tannenbaum/Schmidt model, as follows:

Authoritative (the leader takes full responsibility).
Consultative (the leader makes a decision after weighing views from the group).

Once you’ve reached a decision, take a few steps back. Ask yourself, “Is it truly consistent with our group’s values, or was it perhaps simply a technocratic outcome: i.e., procedurally proper but devoid of empathy and human understanding? Throughout history, many a group’s decision reached “by the book” later caused dissension, disappointment, or even dissolution of the group itself.

Key Takeaways

Groups may choose among several methods of decision-making, including consensus, depending on their circumstances and the characteristics of their leaders and members. Making decisions which are consistent with the group’s values is of paramount importance.
Think of major decisions made in the last couple of years by two groups you’re a part of. Which method from this section did the groups use in each case? Which of the decisions are you more satisfied with now? Why? To what degree do you feel the decision-making methods the groups used fit the circumstances and the characteristics of the groups themselves?
Tell a classmate about a decision that a group you’re part of needs to make shortly. Ask the classmate for his/her advice on which decision-making method the group should employ.
A major hesitation raised by some people with respect to consensus decision-making is that it requires much more time than voting or other direct methods. In what kind of situation would you be, or have you been, willing to invest “as much time as it takes” to reach consensus in a group?
If you were compelled to make every decision either totally by intuition or totally by analysis, which would you choose? On the basis of what experience or value do you feel this way? If you could choose to have every group leader around you make decisions by only one of the two methods, which would you prefer, and why?

11.3 Effective Strategies for Group Creativity

Define and explain “bisociation.”
Describe brainstorming and identify criteria for its effective use.
Differentiate between neophiles and neophobes.
Distinguish between the creative styles of “brooders” and “spawners.”

Sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, teachers—everybody starts to douse your imagination and creativity. At a young age it starts, and then all of a sudden you’re like a trunk going through an airport, covered in stickers. I think I have spent most of my life pulling off stickers.

Kim Basinger

Very few people do anything creative after the age of thirty-five. The reason is that very few people do anything creative before the age of thirty-five.

Joel Hildebrand

You can’t wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.

Jack London

Human beings are naturally creative from an early age. Think of any four- or five-year-old child you’ve ever met, and you can verify this for yourself. Here are some examples from journals kept by one of the authors concerning his children’s development before age six:

I was reading Animal Farm the other day and mentioned that one of the “Seven Commandments” of the animals had to do with the beliefs that the beasts liked anything with four legs or wings. Amelia said, “Oh—then they like airplanes!”

Last night at dinner, Claire looked at the roll-top wooden bread storage compartment over the counter top in our kitchen and said, “That’s a garage door where food parks.”

When I was explaining that there are only four tastes which human tongues can detect—salty, sweet, sour, and bitter—Claire asked, “What about ‘yucky’?”

Last night on the way to folk-dancing, we started talking about vocabulary. For some reason, Amelia created a new word: “trampede.” According to her, a “trampede” is a centipede on a trampoline.

Solving problems and making decisions both work best if people in a group are creative; i.e., if they entertain new perspectives and generate new ideas. Can this be a simple matter of having the group’s leader tell people “Be creative,” though? Probably not. It’s like saying, “Don’t think of an elephant”: it’s apt to produce just the opposite effect of the command itself. Still, tools and techniques for encouraging creativity in a group do exist.

A Theory of Creativity

Arthur Koestler, a major intellectual and political force in Europe and the United States throughout most of the 20 th century, contended that all creativity comprises a process he called “ bisociation .” Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan. Koestler’s seminal book on this topic, titled The Act of Creation , put forth a theory that he believed accounted for people’s “Aha” reaction of scientific discovery, their “Ha-ha” reaction to jokes, and their “Ah” reaction of mystical or religious insight.

Above all, creativity creates new things—things that weren’t there before the creative act took place. In every kind of creative situation, according to Koestler, the result is produced by a meeting of lines of thought that bring together hitherto unconnected ideas and fuse them into something new. If the lines of thought concern devotional matters, mystical insight emerges, and when they concern more mundane matters the result is apt to be a joke. If they are scientific, the result is a scientific discovery.

The expression “to think outside the box” is often used to refer to creativity. Koestler’s view seems to be that creativity consists, instead, of linking existing but separate “boxes” together. One implication of his theory is that, to be creative, a person not only needs to depart from the status quo but also needs to be familiar and comfortable with a range of alternatives from a wide variety of fields. Koestler’s perspective would seem to be consistent with the association we often make between creativity on the one hand and intelligence and breadth of knowledge on the other.

Overcoming Inertia

At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.

Maurice Maeterlinck

When you cannot make up your mind which of two evenly balanced courses of action you should take, choose the bolder.

William Joseph Slim

Groups generally comprise a mixture of people when it comes to openness to change. A small fraction of the members may position themselves at one end of the openness continuum or the other. Some of these people, called neophiles , will eagerly embrace almost anything novel. Others, known as neophobes , will invariably shun what’s new and prefer the security of what they know and have done in the past. The majority of people, however, probably don’t fit neatly into either of these categories. Instead, they may prefer to produce or experiment with new things under certain circumstances and resist them under others.

It’s rarely possible to provoke creativity on the part of an entire group all at once. You needn’t agree with Thomas Fuller’s aphorism that “a conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time” to realize that some people in groups will hold onto what they’re familiar with all the more stubbornly as others begin to waver and experiment with something new.

Brainstorming

In regard to every problem that arises, there are counselors who say, “Do nothing” [and] other counselors who say, “Do everything”…I say to you: “Do something”; and when you have done something, if it works, do it some more; and if it does not work, then do something else.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

One familiar technique that experts in the realm of creative thinking have long recommended is brainstorming . Alex Osborn, an advertising executive, began using the term in the mid-1950s and described the method in detail in his book Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving . Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd revised ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

One criterion of proper brainstorming is that it must begin with an unrestricted search for quantity and creativity rather than quality. It should actually solicit and reward craziness and zaniness, in other words.

A second criterion for good brainstorming is that it should encourage and praise “piggybacking” on ideas which have already emerged. A third is that brainstormers should avoid making any judgments until they’ve generated an extensive list of ideas.

Robert Sutton, a respected organizational consultant, published a book in 2002 called Weird Ideas That Work . Sutton, R. (2002). Weird ideas that work . New York: Free Press. Among other things, Sutton’s book paid tribute to brainstorming.

One of Sutton’s central contentions was that excellence arises from “a range of differences”—precisely what brainstorming aims to generate. To illustrate, Sutton declared that such prodigious geniuses as Shakespeare, Einstein, Mozart, Edison, and Picasso were first and foremost productive. In fact, he argued that these brilliant individuals didn’t succeed at a higher rate than anyone else; they just did more.

Mozart, for instance, started composing when he was seven years old and wrote at least 20 pieces of music per year from then until his death at the age of 35. Several of his compositions were routine or even dull, but many were sublime and some are unquestioned masterpieces.

Closer to home, Sutton noted that today’s toy business offers examples of the value of starting with lots of ideas and only then selecting quality ones. Skyline, an arm of California’s IDEO Corporation, employed just 10 staff members in 1998 but generated 4,000 ideas in that year for new toys.

According to Sutton, those 4,000 ideas boiled down to 230 possibilities worth examining through careful drawings or working prototypes. Of the 230 concepts, 12 were ultimately sold. In other words, the “yield” of saleable products came to only 3/10 of one per cent of the original ideas. Sutton quoted Skyline’s founder, Brendan Boyle, as saying, “You can’t get any good new ideas without having a lot of dumb, lousy, and crazy ones.”

The Ostrich and the Sea Urchin

Now let’s take a look at what two animals have to do with ideas in general, and with varied ways of being creative about ideas in specific. The two animals are the ostrich and the sea urchin.

The ostrich’s reproductive processes lies at one end of a continuum, the sea urchin’s at the other. Like the 350-pound mother which lays it, an ostrich egg is large, imposing, and tough. For 42 days after it’s laid, it grows until it weighs more than three pounds. It will then reliably crack open and release a baby ostrich. Unless something highly unexpected happens, its mother will tend it well, and that single baby ostrich will in turn grow up and become a mature ostrich.

A sea urchin differs in almost every respect from an ostrich. The whole animal takes up less space and weighs less than an ostrich egg, for one thing. It has no eyes. It hardly moves all its life. To propagate, an urchin spews a cloud of more than a million miniscule eggs into the ocean. The eggs disperse immediately into the tide pools and reef inlets populated by their spiny parents.

Some of the sea urchin eggs meet sea urchin sperm and combine to form tiny, transparent, free-floating embryos. Eggs remain viable for only 6–8 hours, however, so lots of them die before this happens. Of a one-million-egg cloud, those which are to have a chance of becoming embryos must do so within 48 hours. The odds aren’t good.

Then things thin out even more. A Stanford University publication points out that “the young embryo is totally at the mercy of the sea. There are many organisms that will consume the young sea urchin embryo and later the young sea urchin.” Brooders vs spawners. In other words, the overwhelming majority of sea urchin eggs die of loneliness or get eaten.

Biologists call animals like ostriches “brooders” because they create only a few offspring but take care of each one faithfully. Creatures such as sea urchins, which produce vast numbers of candidates for fertilization but don’t take care of them and lose most of them to predators, are called “spawners.” Brainstorming is clearly a “spawning” process rather than a “brooding” one.

Threats to the Effectiveness of Brainstorming

Although it is meant to generate large quantities of ideas on which to base sound decision-making, brainstorming entails some same challenges. One group of researchers Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18 (5): 643–650. identified three potential weakening factors inherent within brainstorming:

Blocking . Since only one person at a time in a group can speak, other members may lose the desire to contribute their own ideas or even forget those ideas in the midst of a lively brainstorming session.
Social matching . Brown, V., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). A simple dynamic model of social factors in group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27 , 91–114. People in a group tend to calibrate their own degree of contribution to its activities on the basis of what the other members do. If someone has lots of ideas but sees that the rest of the group is less productive, that person is apt to reduce his or her own creative production.
Illusion of group productivity . Group members are apt to rate the level of their output as being higher than it actually is. For one thing, members describe their group as being above average in productivity with respect to other groups. They also overrate their individual contributions; people in one study, for instance, said that they had contributed 36% of their group’s ideas when in fact they had offered only 25%. Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (4), 575–586.
Creativity, which can play a positive role in group decision-making, has been described as a process of combining two disparate elements. It can be stimulated through brainstorming.
Do you agree with Arthur Koestler that all creativity involves bringing disparate trains of thought together? Provide 2–3 examples which support your answer.
Do you consider yourself a “brooder” or a “spawner”? Explain your response to a fellow student, providing examples which support your answer.
When was the last time you showed exceptional creativity? What factors in your environment or within you at the time contributed most to that creativity?
Think of a neophile and a neophobe whom you’ve encountered in a group. Describe actions that each person took which illustrate his/her neophilia or neophobia.

11.4 Facilitating the Task-Oriented Group

Define “group facilitation”
Identify five guidelines for facilitating a task-oriented group
Distinguish between collaboration and “coliberation”

Remember the story that Pope John XXIII told about himself. He admitted, “It often happens that I wake at night and begin to think about a serious problem and decide I must tell the Pope about it. Then I wake up completely and remember that I am the Pope.”

Glenn van Ekeren

I’m extraordinarily patient provided I get my own way in the end.

Margaret Thatcher

You’ve probably experienced being part of groups that pleased and motivated you. One reason you experienced those positive feelings may have been that the groups planned and executed their tasks so smoothly that you were hardly aware the processes were taking place. In this section we’ll examine ways in which leaders can contribute to such pleasant, easy experiences.

Just as “facile” in English and “fácil” in Spanish mean “easy,” the word “facilitate” itself means “to make something easy” and “ group facilitation ” consists in easing a group’s growth and progress. Most student, community, and business groups are task-oriented, so we’ll consider here how they can most easily be guided toward accomplishing the tasks they set for themselves. Another section of this book deals specifically with the details of leading meetings, so for now we’ll consider broader questions and principles.

If you’re in a position to facilitate a group, you need to take that position seriously. Just as Pope John XXIII realized with respect to his authority and responsibility in the Catholic Church, it’s best to consider yourself the primary source of direction and the ultimate destination for questions in your group. With those concepts in mind, let’s consider five major guidelines you should probably follow in order to facilitate a group whose purposes include achieving tasks.

Know the group’s members. This means more than just identifying their names and recognizing their faces. If you hope to accomplish anything significant together, you need to be familiar with people’s opinions, their needs, their desires, and their personalities.

Perhaps one member of a group you’re leading is particularly time-conscious, another likes to make jokes, and a third prefers to see concepts represented visually. If you take these propensities into account and respond to them as much as possible, you can draw the best cooperative effort from each of the people.

You may want to keep track of who’s done what favors for whom within the group, too. Like it or not, many people operate at least from time to time on the principle that “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”

Weigh task and relationship considerations. The word “ equilibristic ” is sometimes applied to the actions of athletes and musicians. It refers to a capability to balance differing and sometimes conflicting forces so as to maintain continuous movement in a chosen direction.

Although almost any group has some work to do, and all groups comprise people whose welfare needs to be tended to, the effective facilitator realizes that it’s impossible to emphasize both those elements to the same degree all the time. If people are disgruntled or frustrated, they can’t contribute well to accomplishing a task. Likewise, if people are always contented with one another and their group but can’t focus on getting things done, the group will be unable to attain its objectives. To facilitate a group well, thus, requires that you be equilibristic.

Understand and anticipate prevalent features of human psychology. Keep in mind that everyone in a group will perceive what the facilitator does in light of his or her own circumstances and wishes.

Recall also that everyone possesses diverse and numerous capacities for self-justification and self-support. In their book Mistakes were made (but not by me) , Carol Tavris and Ellion Aronson referred to studies of married couples’ behavior. They indicated that when husbands and wives are asked what proportion of the housework they perform, the totals always exceed 100 percent by a large margin. Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Tavris and Aronson also described the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, which presents visitors with interactive exhibits portraying categories of people about whom many of us harbor negative preconceptions—including ethnic and racial minorities, obese individuals, people with disabilities, and so on. A video attempts to persuade visitors that they possess prejudices, after which two doors are offered as an exit. One is marked “Prejudiced” and the other is labeled “Unprejudiced.” The second door is locked, to make the point that all of us are indeed subject to prejudice.

Deal well with disruptions. The playwright Paddy Chayevsky wrote that “life is problems.” An effective group facilitator needs to anticipate and skillfully cope with problems as a part of life, whether they’re caused by other people’s behavior or by physical and logistical factors.

If you’re an adherent of Theory Y , you probably believe that people enjoy pursuing their goals energetically, in groups or individually. You also probably believe that people prefer to select times and places along the way to relax and recharge. Unfortunately, interruptions often arise in such a way as to make both these aims difficult to achieve. Think about all the unexpected academic, family, and work-related reasons why you and other students you know have found it challenging to “stay the course” toward your personal and collective goals.

A group’s facilitator, thus, needs to make sure that interruptions and disruptions don’t derail it. In fact, he or she might profit from actually celebrating these elements of life, as one Seattle office executive did. According to Dale Turner, the executive’s office had a sign on the wall reading “Don’t be irritated by interruptions. They are your reason for being.” Turner went on to quote the executive as saying “Happily, I have learned how to sit loose in the saddle of life, and I’m not usually disturbed by interruptions. I have made it a habit through the years to leave a stretch factor in my daily schedule. I start early and have tried not to so crowd my day with appointments that I have no time for the unexpected. I have not seen interruptions as an intrusion.” Turner, D. (1991, March 23). Slaves of habit—we lose when there’s no room for interruptions in our lives. Seattle Times . Retrieved from ProQuest Database.

Keep returning to the task. You’ve probably been part of a group in which the leader or facilitator had what might be called a divergent, rather than a convergent, personality. Perhaps that person had lots of good ideas but seemed to jump around from topic to topic and chore to chore so much that your head spun and you couldn’t keep track of what was going on. Maybe the person “missed the forest for the trees” because of dwelling excessively on minutia—small and insignificant details. Or perhaps each time you met with the group its facilitator led a discussion of something valuable and important, but every time it was a different thing.

The organizational theorist Anthony Jay wrote that it’s important for leaders to “look for problems through a telescope, not a microscope.” Jay, A. (1967). Management and Machiavelli: An inquiry into the politics of corporate life. New York: Bantam Books. He also contended that, as far as a leader is concerned, “other people can cope with the waves, it’s [the leader’s] job to watch the tide.” By these comments, Jay meant that the primary duty of a group facilitator is to maintain an unwavering focus on the group’s central tasks, whatever they may be.

The Dalai Lama has written, “Whether you are a spiritual leader or a leader in an organization, it is your job to inspire faith.” His Holiness the Dalai Lama & Muyzenberg, L. (2009). The leader’s way: The art of making the right decisions in our careers, our companies, and the world at large. New York: Broadway Books. Slogans, mottos, mission statements, quotations, logos, and written objectives can all contribute to a facilitator’s ability to inspire faith by maintaining a group’s focus and resolve to move in a common direction. Busy students and others in our society often need reminders like these to block out the competing stimuli surrounding them and focus their attention. Such mechanisms, however, should not be merely gimmicks, nor should they be used to promote blind faith in the group’s facilitator.

Another way to think of how a facilitator should keep bringing the group’s attention back to its tasks relates to the process of meditation. Practitioners of meditation know that people’s minds are naturally active and tend to move readily from subject to subject. When someone is meditating, they say, thoughts will naturally pop into his or her mind. The way to deal with this phenomenon is to regard the thoughts as clouds drifting across the sky. Rather than trying to banish them, the better approach is to allow them to pass by and dissipate, and then to return to serene contemplation. Rondon, N. (2006, Meditate. Current Health 2 (32), 20–23. Retrieved from ProQuest Database

Coliberation

Above all, a facilitator’s responsibility is to enable members of a group to function together as easily and happily as possible as they pursue their goals. When this happens, the group will achieve a high level of collaboration. In fact, it may rise beyond collaboration to achieve what the author and computer game designer Bernard DeKoven called “ coliberation .” In speaking about meetings, he had this to say: “Good meetings aren’t just about work. They’re about fun—keeping people charged up. It’s more than collaboration, it’s ‘coliberation’—people freeing each other up to think more creatively.” Matson, E. (1996, April-May). The seven sins of deadly meetings. Fast Company , 122.

To facilitate a task-oriented group requires several skills and behaviors and can lead to a state of “coliberation.”
Recall a time when you were in a group whose leader stressed either its task or relationship factors too much. How did the members of the group react? Did the leader eventually develop an equilibristic approach?
Do you agree with the business executive who said that interruptions are “your reason for being”? In your studies and family life, what measures do you take to ensure that interruptions are beneficial rather than destructive? What further steps do you feel you might take in this direction?
Think of someone who effectively facilitated a group you were part of. Did the person perform the job identified by the Dalai Lama—inspiring faith in the group? If so, how?
What, if anything, do you feel members of most groups need to be “coliberated” from?

11.5 Summary

In this chapter we have explored problem-solving in groups. We have identified steps which groups can use to attack and solve problems, as well as several methods of reaching decisions. We have considered the nature of group creativity and reviewed how brainstorming may contribute to creative problem-solving and decision-making. Finally, we have identified methods which can be used to facilitate the problem-solving and decision-making behavior or task-oriented groups. Following systematic, sequential processes can help groups communicate in ways which resolve problems and lead to appropriate decisions.

Review Questions

Interpretive Questions

In what 2–3 ways has your view of problem-solving or decision-making changed as a result of reading this chapter?
Under what circumstances, or with what kinds of group members, do you feel brainstorming is most likely to produce better results than other methods of generating creative ideas?

Application Questions

Call the office of a state senator or representative. Ask the person who answers the phone to provide you with a list of five creative ideas the legislator has put forth to solve problems facing his or her constituency. If you wanted to expand on the list, who else would you consult, and what process would you use to generate more ideas?
Pick two historical figures who you believe made it easy for people they lived or worked with to achieve shared goals. Find two or three descriptions of episodes in which those figures took action demonstrating that capacity. Identify someone leading a group of which you’re now a member and share the information about the historical figures with that person. What is the person’s reaction? What do you feel might have made the leader’s response more positive?
Look up the phrase “group decision support system” on line and locate 4–5 software programs meant to assist groups with decisions. List advantages and disadvantages of each and share your conclusions with your classmates.

Additional Resources

https://www.deepfun.com/coliberation-the-short-form/ : Bernard “Bernie” De Koven’s blog. A source of provocative ideas on why and how to indulge in creative fun as part of a group.

https://www.co-intelligence.org/I-decisionmakingwithout.html (“How to Make a Decision Without Making a Decision”): An article describing how guided “non-decision-making” can be used by groups to discover what the author refers to as “big obvious truths.”

http://www.tobe.net/ : The website of Dynamic Facilitation Associates, a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching groups how to create choices through intentional facilitation. One of the site’s pages, describes “Co-Counseling” and compassionate communication as further facilitation tools.

problem solving in small group communication

An Introduction to Group Communication, V2.0 Copyright © 2020 by Granite State College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

13.1 Understanding Small Groups

Learning objectives.

Define small group communication.
Discuss the characteristics of small groups.
Compare and contrast different types of small groups.
Discuss advantages and disadvantages of small groups.

Most of the communication skills discussed in this book are directed toward dyadic communication, meaning that they are applied in two-person interactions. While many of these skills can be transferred to and used in small group contexts, the more complex nature of group interaction necessitates some adaptation and some additional skills. Small group communication refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared identity. In this section, we will learn about the characteristics, functions, and types of small groups.

Characteristics of Small Groups

Different groups have different characteristics, serve different purposes, and can lead to positive, neutral, or negative experiences. While our interpersonal relationships primarily focus on relationship building, small groups usually focus on some sort of task completion or goal accomplishment. A college learning community focused on math and science, a campaign team for a state senator, and a group of local organic farmers are examples of small groups that would all have a different size, structure, identity, and interaction pattern.

Size of Small Groups

There is no set number of members for the ideal small group. A small group requires a minimum of three people (because two people would be a pair or dyad), but the upper range of group size is contingent on the purpose of the group. When groups grow beyond fifteen to twenty members, it becomes difficult to consider them a small group based on the previous definition. An analysis of the number of unique connections between members of small groups shows that they are deceptively complex. For example, within a six-person group, there are fifteen separate potential dyadic connections, and a twelve-person group would have sixty-six potential dyadic connections (Hargie, 2011). As you can see, when we double the number of group members, we more than double the number of connections, which shows that network connection points in small groups grow exponentially as membership increases. So, while there is no set upper limit on the number of group members, it makes sense that the number of group members should be limited to those necessary to accomplish the goal or serve the purpose of the group. Small groups that add too many members increase the potential for group members to feel overwhelmed or disconnected.

Structure of Small Groups

A self-formed study group likely has a more flexible structure than a city council committee.

William Rotza – Group – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Group structure is also formed through formal and informal network connections. In terms of formal networks, groups may have clearly defined roles and responsibilities or a hierarchy that shows how members are connected. The group itself may also be a part of an organizational hierarchy that networks the group into a larger organizational structure. This type of formal network is especially important in groups that have to report to external stakeholders. These external stakeholders may influence the group’s formal network, leaving the group little or no control over its structure. Conversely, groups have more control over their informal networks, which are connections among individuals within the group and among group members and people outside of the group that aren’t official. For example, a group member’s friend or relative may be able to secure a space to hold a fundraiser at a discounted rate, which helps the group achieve its task. Both types of networks are important because they may help facilitate information exchange within a group and extend a group’s reach in order to access other resources.

Size and structure also affect communication within a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). In terms of size, the more people in a group, the more issues with scheduling and coordination of communication. Remember that time is an important resource in most group interactions and a resource that is usually strained. Structure can increase or decrease the flow of communication. Reachability refers to the way in which one member is or isn’t connected to other group members. For example, the “Circle” group structure in Figure 13.1 “Small Group Structures” shows that each group member is connected to two other members. This can make coordination easy when only one or two people need to be brought in for a decision. In this case, Erik and Callie are very reachable by Winston, who could easily coordinate with them. However, if Winston needed to coordinate with Bill or Stephanie, he would have to wait on Erik or Callie to reach that person, which could create delays. The circle can be a good structure for groups who are passing along a task and in which each member is expected to progressively build on the others’ work. A group of scholars coauthoring a research paper may work in such a manner, with each person adding to the paper and then passing it on to the next person in the circle. In this case, they can ask the previous person questions and write with the next person’s area of expertise in mind. The “Wheel” group structure in Figure 13.1 “Small Group Structures” shows an alternative organization pattern. In this structure, Tara is very reachable by all members of the group. This can be a useful structure when Tara is the person with the most expertise in the task or the leader who needs to review and approve work at each step before it is passed along to other group members. But Phillip and Shadow, for example, wouldn’t likely work together without Tara being involved.

Figure 13.1 Small Group Structures

Looking at the group structures, we can make some assumptions about the communication that takes place in them. The wheel is an example of a centralized structure, while the circle is decentralized. Research has shown that centralized groups are better than decentralized groups in terms of speed and efficiency (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). But decentralized groups are more effective at solving complex problems. In centralized groups like the wheel, the person with the most connections, person C, is also more likely to be the leader of the group or at least have more status among group members, largely because that person has a broad perspective of what’s going on in the group. The most central person can also act as a gatekeeper. Since this person has access to the most information, which is usually a sign of leadership or status, he or she could consciously decide to limit the flow of information. But in complex tasks, that person could become overwhelmed by the burden of processing and sharing information with all the other group members. The circle structure is more likely to emerge in groups where collaboration is the goal and a specific task and course of action isn’t required under time constraints. While the person who initiated the group or has the most expertise in regards to the task may emerge as a leader in a decentralized group, the equal access to information lessens the hierarchy and potential for gatekeeping that is present in the more centralized groups.

Interdependence

Small groups exhibit interdependence , meaning they share a common purpose and a common fate. If the actions of one or two group members lead to a group deviating from or not achieving their purpose, then all members of the group are affected. Conversely, if the actions of only a few of the group members lead to success, then all members of the group benefit. This is a major contributor to many college students’ dislike of group assignments, because they feel a loss of control and independence that they have when they complete an assignment alone. This concern is valid in that their grades might suffer because of the negative actions of someone else or their hard work may go to benefit the group member who just skated by. Group meeting attendance is a clear example of the interdependent nature of group interaction. Many of us have arrived at a group meeting only to find half of the members present. In some cases, the group members who show up have to leave and reschedule because they can’t accomplish their task without the other members present. Group members who attend meetings but withdraw or don’t participate can also derail group progress. Although it can be frustrating to have your job, grade, or reputation partially dependent on the actions of others, the interdependent nature of groups can also lead to higher-quality performance and output, especially when group members are accountable for their actions.

Shared Identity

The shared identity of a group manifests in several ways. Groups may have official charters or mission and vision statements that lay out the identity of a group. For example, the Girl Scout mission states that “Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place” (Girl Scouts, 2012). The mission for this large organization influences the identities of the thousands of small groups called troops. Group identity is often formed around a shared goal and/or previous accomplishments, which adds dynamism to the group as it looks toward the future and back on the past to inform its present. Shared identity can also be exhibited through group names, slogans, songs, handshakes, clothing, or other symbols. At a family reunion, for example, matching t-shirts specially made for the occasion, dishes made from recipes passed down from generation to generation, and shared stories of family members that have passed away help establish a shared identity and social reality.

A key element of the formation of a shared identity within a group is the establishment of the in-group as opposed to the out-group. The degree to which members share in the in-group identity varies from person to person and group to group. Even within a family, some members may not attend a reunion or get as excited about the matching t-shirts as others. Shared identity also emerges as groups become cohesive, meaning they identify with and like the group’s task and other group members. The presence of cohesion and a shared identity leads to a building of trust, which can also positively influence productivity and members’ satisfaction.

Types of Small Groups

There are many types of small groups, but the most common distinction made between types of small groups is that of task-oriented and relational-oriented groups (Hargie, 2011). Task-oriented groups are formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995). In such groups, like a committee or study group, interactions and decisions are primarily evaluated based on the quality of the final product or output. The three main types of tasks are production, discussion, and problem-solving tasks (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Groups faced with production tasks are asked to produce something tangible from their group interactions such as a report, design for a playground, musical performance, or fundraiser event. Groups faced with discussion tasks are asked to talk through something without trying to come up with a right or wrong answer. Examples of this type of group include a support group for people with HIV/AIDS, a book club, or a group for new fathers. Groups faced with problem-solving tasks have to devise a course of action to meet a specific need. These groups also usually include a production and discussion component, but the end goal isn’t necessarily a tangible product or a shared social reality through discussion. Instead, the end goal is a well-thought-out idea. Task-oriented groups require honed problem-solving skills to accomplish goals, and the structure of these groups is more rigid than that of relational-oriented groups.

Relational-oriented groups are formed to promote interpersonal connections and are more focused on quality interactions that contribute to the well-being of group members. Decision making is directed at strengthening or repairing relationships rather than completing discrete tasks or debating specific ideas or courses of action. All groups include task and relational elements, so it’s best to think of these orientations as two ends of a continuum rather than as mutually exclusive. For example, although a family unit works together daily to accomplish tasks like getting the kids ready for school and friendship groups may plan a surprise party for one of the members, their primary and most meaningful interactions are still relational. Since other chapters in this book focus specifically on interpersonal relationships, this chapter focuses more on task-oriented groups and the dynamics that operate within these groups.

To more specifically look at the types of small groups that exist, we can examine why groups form. Some groups are formed based on interpersonal relationships. Our family and friends are considered primary groups , or long-lasting groups that are formed based on relationships and include significant others. These are the small groups in which we interact most frequently. They form the basis of our society and our individual social realities. Kinship networks provide important support early in life and meet physiological and safety needs, which are essential for survival. They also meet higher-order needs such as social and self-esteem needs. When people do not interact with their biological family, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they can establish fictive kinship networks, which are composed of people who are not biologically related but fulfill family roles and help provide the same support.

We also interact in many secondary groups , which are characterized by less frequent face-to-face interactions, less emotional and relational communication, and more task-related communication than primary groups (Barker, 1991). While we are more likely to participate in secondary groups based on self-interest, our primary-group interactions are often more reciprocal or other oriented. For example, we may join groups because of a shared interest or need.

Groups formed based on shared interest include social groups and leisure groups such as a group of independent film buffs, science fiction fans, or bird watchers. Some groups form to meet the needs of individuals or of a particular group of people. Examples of groups that meet the needs of individuals include study groups or support groups like a weight loss group. These groups are focused on individual needs, even though they meet as a group, and they are also often discussion oriented. Service groups, on the other hand, work to meet the needs of individuals but are task oriented. Service groups include Habitat for Humanity and Rotary Club chapters, among others. Still other groups form around a shared need, and their primary task is advocacy. For example, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis is a group that was formed by a small group of eight people in the early 1980s to advocate for resources and support for the still relatively unknown disease that would later be known as AIDS. Similar groups form to advocate for everything from a stop sign at a neighborhood intersection to the end of human trafficking.

clear and inspiring shared goals,
a results-driven structure,
competent team members,
a collaborative climate,
high standards for performance,
external support and recognition, and
ethical and accountable leadership.

Increasingly, small groups and teams are engaging in more virtual interaction. Virtual groups take advantage of new technologies and meet exclusively or primarily online to achieve their purpose or goal. Some virtual groups may complete their task without ever being physically face-to-face. Virtual groups bring with them distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups

As with anything, small groups have their advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of small groups include shared decision making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. It is within small groups that most of the decisions that guide our country, introduce local laws, and influence our family interactions are made. In a democratic society, participation in decision making is a key part of citizenship. Groups also help in making decisions involving judgment calls that have ethical implications or the potential to negatively affect people. Individuals making such high-stakes decisions in a vacuum could have negative consequences given the lack of feedback, input, questioning, and proposals for alternatives that would come from group interaction. Group members also help expand our social networks, which provide access to more resources. A local community-theater group may be able to put on a production with a limited budget by drawing on these connections to get set-building supplies, props, costumes, actors, and publicity in ways that an individual could not. The increased knowledge, diverse perspectives, and access to resources that groups possess relates to another advantage of small groups—synergy.

Synergy refers to the potential for gains in performance or heightened quality of interactions when complementary members or member characteristics are added to existing ones (Larson Jr., 2010). Because of synergy, the final group product can be better than what any individual could have produced alone. When I worked in housing and residence life, I helped coordinate a “World Cup Soccer Tournament” for the international students that lived in my residence hall. As a group, we created teams representing different countries around the world, made brackets for people to track progress and predict winners, got sponsors, gathered prizes, and ended up with a very successful event that would not have been possible without the synergy created by our collective group membership. The members of this group were also exposed to international diversity that enriched our experiences, which is also an advantage of group communication.

Participating in groups can also increase our exposure to diversity and broaden our perspectives. Although groups vary in the diversity of their members, we can strategically choose groups that expand our diversity, or we can unintentionally end up in a diverse group. When we participate in small groups, we expand our social networks, which increase the possibility to interact with people who have different cultural identities than ourselves. Since group members work together toward a common goal, shared identification with the task or group can give people with diverse backgrounds a sense of commonality that they might not have otherwise. Even when group members share cultural identities, the diversity of experience and opinion within a group can lead to broadened perspectives as alternative ideas are presented and opinions are challenged and defended.

A social loafer is a dreaded group member who doesn’t do his or her share of the work, expecting that others on the group won’t notice or will pick up the slack.

Henry Burrows – Sleeping On The Job – CC BY-SA 2.0.

There are also disadvantages to small group interaction. In some cases, one person can be just as or more effective than a group of people. Think about a situation in which a highly specialized skill or knowledge is needed to get something done. In this situation, one very knowledgeable person is probably a better fit for the task than a group of less knowledgeable people. Group interaction also has a tendency to slow down the decision-making process. Individuals connected through a hierarchy or chain of command often work better in situations where decisions must be made under time constraints. When group interaction does occur under time constraints, having one “point person” or leader who coordinates action and gives final approval or disapproval on ideas or suggestions for actions is best.

Group communication also presents interpersonal challenges. A common problem is coordinating and planning group meetings due to busy and conflicting schedules. Some people also have difficulty with the other-centeredness and self-sacrifice that some groups require. The interdependence of group members that we discussed earlier can also create some disadvantages. Group members may take advantage of the anonymity of a group and engage in social loafing , meaning they contribute less to the group than other members or than they would if working alone (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social loafers expect that no one will notice their behaviors or that others will pick up their slack. It is this potential for social loafing that makes many students and professionals dread group work, especially those who have a tendency to cover for other group members to prevent the social loafer from diminishing the group’s productivity or output.

Key Takeaways

Getting integrated: Small group communication refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared identity. Small groups are important communication units in academic, professional, civic, and personal contexts.

Several characteristics influence small groups, including size, structure, interdependence, and shared identity.

In terms of size, small groups must consist of at least three people, but there is no set upper limit on the number of group members. The ideal number of group members is the smallest number needed to competently complete the group’s task or achieve the group’s purpose.
Internal influences such as member characteristics and external factors such as the group’s size, task, and access to resources affect a group’s structure. A group’s structure also affects how group members communicate, as some structures are more centralized and hierarchical and other structures are more decentralized and equal.
Groups are interdependent in that they have a shared purpose and a shared fate, meaning that each group member’s actions affect every other group member.
Groups develop a shared identity based on their task or purpose, previous accomplishments, future goals, and an identity that sets their members apart from other groups.

There are various types of groups, including task-oriented, relational-oriented, primary, and secondary groups, as well as teams.

Task-oriented groups are formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information, while relational-oriented groups are formed to promote interpersonal connections. While there are elements of both in every group, the overall purpose of a group can usually be categorized as primarily task or relational oriented.
Primary groups are long-lasting groups that are formed based on interpersonal relationships and include family and friendship groups, and secondary groups are characterized by less frequent interaction and less emotional and relational communication than in primary groups. Our communication in primary groups is more frequently other oriented than our communication in secondary groups, which is often self-oriented.
Teams are similar to task-oriented groups, but they are characterized by a high degree of loyalty and dedication to the group’s task and to other group members.
Advantages of group communication include shared decision making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. Disadvantages of group communication include unnecessary group formation (when the task would be better performed by one person), difficulty coordinating schedules, and difficulty with accountability and social loafing.
A study group for this class
A committee to decide on library renovation plans
An upper-level college class in your major
A group to advocate for more awareness of and support for abandoned animals
List some groups to which you have belonged that focused primarily on tasks and then list some that focused primarily on relationships. Compare and contrast your experiences in these groups.
Synergy is one of the main advantages of small group communication. Explain a time when a group you were in benefited from or failed to achieve synergy. What contributed to your success/failure?

Adler, R. B., and Jeanne Marquardt Elmhorst, Communicating at Work: Principles and Practices for Businesses and the Professions , 8th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2005), 248–50.

Ahuja, M. K., and John E. Galvin, “Socialization in Virtual Groups,” Journal of Management 29, no. 2 (2003): 163.

Barker, D. B., “The Behavioral Analysis of Interpersonal Intimacy in Group Development,” Small Group Research 22, no. 1 (1991): 79.

Comer, D. R., “Organizational Newcomers’ Acquisition of Information from Peers,” Management Communication Quarterly 5, no. 1 (1991): 64–89.

Ellis, D. G., and B. Aubrey Fisher, Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process , 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 57.

Girl Scouts, “Facts,” accessed July 15, 2012, http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/facts .

Hargie, O., Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice , 5th ed. (London: Routledge, 2011), 452–53.

Karau, S. J., and Kipling D. Williams, “Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, no. 4 (1993): 681.

Larson, C. E., and Frank M. J. LaFasto, TeamWork: What Must Go Right/What Must Go Wrong (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), 73.

Larson Jr., J. R., In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance (New York: Psychology Press, 2010).

McKay, M., Martha Davis, and Patrick Fanning, Messages: Communication Skills Book , 2nd ed. (Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1995), 254.

Myers, S. A., and Alan K. Goodboy, “A Study of Grouphate in a Course on Small Group Communication,” Psychological Reports 97, no. 2 (2005): 385.

Walther, J. B., and Ulla Bunz, “The Rules of Virtual Groups: Trust, Liking, and Performance in Computer-Mediated Communication,” Journal of Communication 55, no. 4 (2005): 830.

Weimer, M., “Why Students Hate Groups,” The Teaching Professor , July 1, 2008, accessed July 15, 2012, http://www.teachingprofessor.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/why-students-hate-groups .

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams

(5 reviews)

Jasmine R. Linabary, Emporia State University

Moon Castro, Emporia State University

Publisher: Jasmine R. Linabary

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Riley Richards, Assistant Professor, Oregon Institute of Technology on 9/14/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

All the central ideas for stand-alone small group communication courses are included. The most extensive areas in which I needed to add information were communication theory and meetings. For theories, both add in additional theories that are not ever mentioned and expand on the ones that are briefly mentioned. For meetings, I found students needed far more instruction than what the chapter provides.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The information was accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

About 90% of the text is 'timeless.' For example, the reason for individuals joining groups has more or less always been considered the same way. The remaining 10% is outdated as it relates to communication technology, especially virtual groups. Most of the findings, claims, and references in these sections are based on Walther's early work in the 2000s.

Clarity rating: 4

Here as well 90% is perfectly fine. Then 10% needs more connection and elaboration. This stems from most of the text being from other OER materials and then pieced together. This is a fine approach, but more connection between ideas would make the overall explanation stronger.

Consistency rating: 5

Good, no issues.

Modularity rating: 5

Each "chapter" can be stand-alone and mixed, that's what I do.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Here as well, more elaboration and connection between central ideas would be helpful.

Interface rating: 4

I have not found issues with the PDF version of the text. The online webpage version of the text has some glitches.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Culture isn't a major part of the text. In some places, it should be emphasized more. For example, the advantages and disadvantages of groups in chapter 1.

If you use this text, use the PDF version instead of the webpage version.

Reviewed by Wendy Riemann, Communication Instructor, The George Washington University on 6/20/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book is a great highlights reel of the most important components of small group work, taking readers from the creation of a group through the group’s lifespan. It covers topics effectively, without being overwhelming. It really focuses on the specifics of small group work and provides different approaches that a group might take on various topics, such as brainstorming.

I found the book to be accurate and unbiased. Research and scholarly articles were sourced throughout it.

This is a very practical textbook. Examples are useful without being trendy – COVID is not mentioned, so the virtual components of working in a group are present, but an instructor could add in more about Zoom, etc. Someone could easily work through this book at a nice pace over the course of a semester. The book provides a strong foundation of factual material so it won't go out of style, however instructors may want to contribute more about current events, news stories, etc.

Clarity rating: 5

The textbook is easy to understand – perfect for an introductory course. I like that it uses paragraphs instead of extensive bullets – it clearly connects the dots. It is very reader friendly with highlighted terms and a glossary at the back.

Each chapter is well-written in a similar format. There are review questions at the end to ponder.

Each chapter is a manageable read with multiple sections within each chapter. This would be easy to breakdown into different units throughout the semester or read a chapter each week. It is easy to navigate through the book chapters.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Reading through the text, the chapter order makes logical sense. An instructor could assign the chapters in a different order to read, but I don’t think it would be necessary – it flows well and exceeded my expectations in connecting the dots.

Interface rating: 5

No issues here. Good use of charts. I would love even more assessment ideas for students.

Well-written chapters and free from errors. Easy to read.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

I appreciated the chapter on working with different cultures. Many of the examples were generic enough that they could be modified to work within any classroom setting, but I think it could go further with examples. An instructor may want to bring in additional examples to highlight, such as generational differences within workplace settings.

I’ve looked through multiple books focused on small groups to teach my class and really appreciate the level of detail – without being overwhelming – in this text. It covers theories, concepts, and skills in a direct manner. It is a good fit for undergraduates in an introductory course. For an instructor who has various class activities, assessments, and projects in mind already, and wants strong supporting material to add structure and context to their course, this book would be an excellent complement.

Reviewed by Dana Trunnell, Associate Professor of Communication, Prairie State College on 6/15/22

I am impressed with the coverage of topics that illustrate how students can become more effective communicators in various small group settings. This text lends credence to the historical study of small group work while also providing students with a framework for working through emerging trends like improving the function of virtual small groups. I would love to see more attention given to the systems approach toward group communication because it is such a popular theory.

The text provides an accurate description of the historical and current trends in approaching small group communication. Each chapter/module draws from scholarly research and lists bibliographic information at the end of each module. I did not uncover bias in the text's approach.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

I found this text to be updated to reflect modern trends in small group communication, including strategies for working in virtual groups. I found the information provided regarding virtual groups to be up-to-date; however, some students might need more robust descriptions of software and other technology. It might also be helpful to include information about how students might become more proficient with technology (E.g., working with campus instructional technology offices, using online tutorials, etc.).

I found the book to be very readable - the language is clear and precise, and any terms needing additional explanation are hyperlinked to give students more context.

I found that the textbook is consistent with the accepted terminology and framework discussed in the field of small group communication. In fact, this book recognizes that there are inconsistencies among small group scholars (i.e., how many people make a small group, etc.) and discusses why those inconsistencies might exist.

I have used other OER books in the past and what I like about this text is that one complete chapter is available when one clicks on the link to the chapter instead of only one subsection of that chapter. So, students can read the entire chapter from one link without having to scroll through other pages using navigational tools. I have found that the latter is very confusing to students, who might read only the first subsection and not the entire chapter. These links can easily be incorporated into an LMS module for easy access. In addition, each chapter is very readable - the information is not long-winded and sticks to the basics with relevant examples and sidebars included where necessary. And, with 16 chapters, instructors can choose to cover one chapter per 16-week course, if desired.

The organization is one of my favorite aspects of this text! This book recognizes the need for students to understand basic aspects of group formation before thinking about maintaining the group's atmosphere and/or tackling tasks as a team. In small group instruction, students tend to jump right into the assigned tasks because that's what is typically expected of a college classroom. The order of this book slows students down and helps everyone to understand the importance of creating an effective group before moving forward.

The interface of this textbook is certainly one of its chief strengths. Students can access chapter content from a link provided by their instructor or can navigate through the text using a descriptive and simple table of contents. Each chapter is organized in a similar format - subsections with chapter content, sidebar information where additional instruction might be useful, review questions, and a bibliography. Difficult terms or concepts requiring a bit more context are hyperlinked so students who need more information can easily access it.

I did not encounter grammatical errors as I read.

Not only do the authors use inclusive language throughout the book, but they also devote Chapter 5 to Working in Diverse Teams. Chapter 5 goes beyond a hasty sensitivity lesson to include a mini-course in intercultural communication that helps students improve their cultural intelligence and competency in interacting with people from different cultures.

For an introductory-level small group communication course, this book is hard to beat. It is comprehensive, readable, and helps students become acquainted with the discipline without breaking the bank.

Reviewed by Erica Knotts, Communication Instructor, Southern Oregon University on 1/2/22

Content is easy to understand for students new to the study of small group communication. While I would have liked to see a few more theories and models explored in depth rather than just a quick reference, the content included seemed to cover all... read more

No glaring errors visible. Most content was supported with research and scholarly evidence.

Content is up to date with current research and current trends including the adjustment and study of virtual groupwork over the past year.

Language is simplistic and easy to navigate. Definitions of terms are clear and concise. Examples are current and connected to today's learner.

Terminology is defined using realistic examples and a framework which learners will be able to understand.

Modularity rating: 4

There is some room to separate content a bit more especially subsections within each section, but overall the structure and formatting used is clear and the book is easy to navigate.

Book follows the life cycle of a small group from beginning to end making it easy to navigate and understand.

Links are easy to find including glossary terms. Entire book is searchable and charts/graphics are clear and helpful for the learner.

I did not come across any glaring grammatical errors

Book addresses topics of diversity in a clear way using current research to justify content. Graphics and conversation examples are inclusive but there is room for expansion on this topic overall when it comes to addressing how groups function in a variety of settings. There is some, but I would like to have seen a bit more.

If you are looking for a simple and basic book to introduce learners to small group communication, this is the book for you. This is a great starter conversation to this field of study. I would have liked to see a few areas expanded upon as well as some more activities and perhaps some surveys included, but overall it is a clear and concise book.

Reviewed by Lynn McCool, Assistant Professor of Business Communication, Drake University on 11/17/21

This book provides a thorough overview of small group and team-based communication theory, formation, and essential skills. read more

This book provides a thorough overview of small group and team-based communication theory, formation, and essential skills.

This text accurately identifies how groups form, ways to cultivate a supportive group climate, and how to put group communication skills into practice.

This book is just the right length for a communication course that is project and skills-oriented. It provides the right blend of content and discussion questions.

The author's style is clear because of the use of reader-friendly hyperlinked explanations for terms and important concepts.

This text consistently uses terminology in relatable ways to build a logical framework for readers.

The author makes strategic use of smaller paragraphs and logical groupings of information. Portions of this text could be easily reorganized or combined with another work to create something new for students.

The book has a clear organizational hierarchy. The use of hyperlinked information and the online medium create dynamic pathways for readers to explore its content.

The interface of this text is user-friendly and easy to navigate.

I did not encounter any glaring grammatical errors.

This text is inclusive and devotes space to topics of working in diverse teams and negotiating power within groups.

This text is well-written, highly readable, and a really great resource for introducing students to the theory and application of small group and team communication skills.

1. Introducing Small Group Communication
2. Understanding Group Formation
3. Identifying Group Roles
4. Establishing and Maintaining Group Norms
5. Working in Diverse Teams
6. Negotiating Power in Groups
7. Cultivating a Supportive Group Climate
8. Navigating Group Conflict
9. Confronting and Preventing Social Loafing
10. Making Decisions in Groups
11. Engaging in Group Problem-Solving
12. Identifying Leaders
13. Leading in Groups
14. Facilitating Group Meetings
15. Enhancing Creativity in Groups
16. Presenting as a Group

Ancillary Material

About the book.

Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams is an interdisciplinary textbook focused on communication in groups and teams. This textbook aims to provide students with theories, concepts, and skills they can put into practice to form and sustain successful groups across a variety of contexts.

About the Contributors

Moon Castro is a McNair Scholar and a senior communication major at Emporia State University. His research interests include peacebuilding, social change, and emerging technology. Castro is a past winner of the Community Impact Challenge, a grant competition in which teams of students identify creative and meaningful solutions to challenges facing the campus or local community.

Jasmine R. Linabary , Ph.D., is an assistant professor of communication at Emporia State University. Her research focuses on organizing, new media, and social change. She teaches classes on topics like small group communication, group leadership, communication and emerging technology, ethics, and public speaking, among others. She is also the co-founder and director of the EAT Initiative, an interdisciplinary and collaborative effort to combat food insecurity.

Contribute to this Page

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

12 Small Group Communication

Introduction

When you think of small groups, you probably think of the much dreaded “group assignment” that you have endured in high school and college. You are less likely to think of the numerous other groups to which you belong that bring more positive experiences, such as your family and friendship groups or shared-interest groups. Group communication scholars are so aware of this common negative sentiment toward group communication that they coined the term grouphate to describe it (Myers & Goodboy, 2005). Small groups, however, are not just entities meant to torture students; they have served a central purpose in human history and evolution. Groups make it easier for us to complete a wide variety of tasks; help us establish meaningful social bonds; and help us create, maintain, and change our sense of self (Hargie, 2011).

Negative group experiences are often exacerbated by a lack of knowledge about group communication processes. We are just expected to know how to work in groups without much instruction or practice. This lack of knowledge about group communication can lead to negative group interactions, which creates a negative cycle that perpetuates further negative experiences. Fortunately, as with other areas of communication, instruction in group communication can improve people’s skills and increase people’s satisfaction with their group experiences.

12.1 Understanding Small Groups

Characteristics of small groups, structure of small groups.

Internal and external influences affect a group’s structure. In terms of internal influences, member characteristics play a role in initial group formation. For instance, a person who is well informed about the group’s task and/ or highly motivated as a group member may emerge as a leader and set into motion internal decision-making processes, such as recruiting new members or assigning group roles that affect the structure of a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Different members will also gravitate toward different roles within the group and will advocate for certain procedures and courses of action over others. External factors such as group size, task, and resources also affect group structure. Some groups will have more control over these external factors through decision making than others. Group structure is also formed through formal and informal network connections (Evans, 2019). In terms of formal networks, groups may have clearly defined roles and responsibilities or a hierarchy that shows how members are connected. The group itself may also be a part of an organizational hierarchy that networks the group into a larger organizational structure. This type of formal network is especially important in groups that have to report to external stakeholders. These external stakeholders may influence the group’s formal network, leaving the group little or no control over its structure. Conversely, groups have more control over their informal networks, which are connections among individuals within the group and among group members and people outside of the group that are not official. For example, a group member’s friend or relative may be able to secure a space to hold a fundraiser at a discounted rate, which helps the group achieve its task. Both types of networks are important because they may help facilitate information exchange within a group and extend a group’s reach in order to access other resources.

Size and structure also affect communication within a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). In terms of size, the more people in a group, the more issues with scheduling and coordination of communication. Remember that time is an important resource in most group interactions and a resource that is usually strained. Structure can increase or decrease the flow of communication. Reachability refers to the way in which one member is or is not connected to other group members. For example, the “Circle” group structure in figure 12.1 shows that each group member is connected to two other members. This can make coordination easy when only one or two people need to be brought in for a decision. In this case, Erik and Callie are very reachable by Winston, who could easily coordinate with them. However, if Winston needed to coordinate with Bill or Stephanie, he would have to wait on Erik or Callie to reach that person, which could create delays. The circle can be a good structure for groups who are passing along a task and in which each member is expected to build progressively on the others’ work. A group of scholars coauthoring a research paper may work in such a manner, with each person adding to the paper and then passing it on to the next person in the circle. In this case, they can ask the previous person questions and write with the next person’s area of expertise in mind.

The “Wheel” group structure in the figure below shows an alternative organization pattern. In this structure, Tara is very reachable by all members of the group. This can be a useful structure when Tara is the person with the most expertise in the task or the leader who needs to review and approve work at each step before it is passed along to other group members. However, Phillip and Shadow, for example, would not likely work together without Tara being involved.

Decentralized structure (left) and centralized structure (right). Decentralized: Winston, Erik, Stephanie, Bill, and Callie are arranged in a circle and connected by left-right arrows to the person on their left and right. Centralized: Tara is in the middle, connected to Pam, Shadow, Phillip, and Tallulah who surround her. They are not connected to eachother, only Tara.

But in complex tasks, that person could become overwhelmed by the burden of processing and sharing information with all the other group members. The circle structure is more likely to emerge in groups where collaboration is the goal and a specific task and course of action is not required under time constraints. While the person who initiated the group or has the most expertise in regards to the task may emerge as a leader in a decentralized group, the equal access to information lessens the hierarchy and potential for gatekeeping that is present in the more centralized groups.

Interdependence

Small groups exhibit interdependence , meaning they share a common purpose and a common fate (Bonito & Staggs, 2018). If the actions of one or two group members lead to a group deviating from or not achieving their purpose, then all members of the group are affected. Conversely, if the actions of only a few of the group members lead to success, then all members of the group benefit. This is a major contributor to many college students’ dislike of group assignments, because they feel a loss of control and independence that they have when they complete an assignment alone.

This concern is valid in that their grades might suffer because of the negative actions of someone else or their hard work may go to benefit the group member who just skated by. Group meeting attendance is a clear example of the interdependent nature of group interaction. Many of us have arrived at a group meeting only to find half of the members present. In some cases, the group members who show up have to leave and reschedule because they cannot accomplish their task without the other members present. Group members who attend meetings but withdraw or do not participate can also derail group progress. Although it can be frustrating to have your job, grade, or reputation partially dependent on the actions of others, the interdependent nature of groups can also lead to higher-quality performance and output, especially when group members are accountable for their actions.

Shared Identity

The shared identity of a group manifests in several ways. Groups may have official charters or mission and vision statements that lay out the identity of a group. For example, the Girl Scout mission states, “Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place” (Girl Scouts, 2012). The mission for this large organization influences the identities of the thousands of small groups called troops. Group identity is often formed around a shared goal and/or previous accomplishments, which adds dynamism to the group as it looks toward the future and back on the past to inform its present. Shared identity can also be exhibited through group names, slogans, songs, handshakes, clothing, or other symbols. At a family reunion, for example, matching t-shirts specially made for the occasion, dishes made from recipes passed down from generation to generation, and shared stories of family members that have passed away help establish a shared identity and social reality.

A key element of the formation of a shared identity within a group is the establishment of the in-group as opposed to the out-group (Greenaway, Wright, Willingham, Reynolds, & Haslam, 2015). The degree to which members share in the in-group identity varies from person to person and group to group. Even within a family, some members may not attend a reunion or get as excited about the matching t-shirts as others get. Shared identity also emerges as groups become cohesive, meaning they identify with and like the group’s task and other group members. The presence of cohesion and a shared identity leads to a building of trust, which can also positively influence productivity and members’ satisfaction.

Groups Meet Instrumental Needs

Groups have long served the instrumental needs of humans, helping with the most basic elements of survival since ancient humans first evolved (Wakefield, Sani, Madhok, Norbury, Dugard, Gabbanelli, Arnetoli, Beconcini, Botindari, Grifoni, Paoli, & Poggesi, 2017). Groups helped humans survive by providing security and protection through increased numbers and access to resources. Today, groups are rarely such a matter of life and death, but they still serve important instrumental functions. Labor unions, for example, pool efforts and resources to attain material security in the form of pay increases and health benefits for their members, which protects them by providing a stable and dependable livelihood. Some groups also meet our informational needs. Although they may not provide material resources, they enrich our knowledge or provide information that we can use to meet our own instrumental needs. Many groups provide referrals to resources or offer advice. For example, several consumer protection and advocacy groups have been formed to offer referrals for people who have been the victim of fraudulent business practices. Whether a group forms to provide services to members that they could not get otherwise, advocate for changes that will affect members’ lives, or provide information, many groups meet some type of instrumental need.

Groups Meet Interpersonal Needs

Group membership meets interpersonal needs by giving us access to inclusion, control, and support. In terms of inclusion, people have a fundamental drive to be a part of a group and to create and maintain social bonds (Osborne, 2020). As we have learned, humans have always lived and worked in small groups. Family and friendship groups, shared-interest groups, and activity groups all provide us with a sense of belonging and being included in an in-group. People also join groups because they want to have some control over a decision-making process or to influence the outcome of a group. Being a part of a group allows people to share opinions and influence others. Conversely, some people join a group to be controlled, because they do not want to be the sole decision maker or leader and instead want to be given a role to follow.

Groups Meet Identity Needs

Our affiliations are building blocks for our identities, because group membership allows us to use reference groups for social comparison—in short, identifying us with some groups and characteristics and separating us from others. Some people join groups to be affiliated with people who share similar or desirable characteristics in terms of beliefs, attitudes, values, or cultural identities. For example, people may join the National Organization for Women because they want to affiliate with others who support women’s rights or a local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) because they want to affiliate with African Americans, people concerned with civil rights, or a combination of the two. Group memberships vary in terms of how much they affect our identity, as some are more prominent than others at various times in our lives. While religious groups as a whole are too large to be considered small groups, the work that people do as a part of a religious community—as a lay leader, deacon, member of a prayer group, or committee—may have deep ties to a person’s identity.

12.2 Types of Small Groups

4 people sit at a table, point at a computer screen, and are talking. There's sticky notes on a whiteboard in the background.

There are many types of small groups, but the most common distinction made between types of small groups is that of task-oriented and relational-oriented groups (Hargie, 2011). Task-oriented groups are formed to solve a problem, promote a cause, or generate ideas or information (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995). In such groups, like a committee or study group, interactions and decisions are primarily evaluated based on the quality of the final product or output. The three main types of tasks are production, discussion, and problem-solving tasks (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Groups faced with production tasks are asked to produce something tangible from their group interactions such as a report, design for a playground, musical performance, or fundraiser event. Groups faced with discussion tasks are asked to talk through something without trying to come up with a right or wrong answer. Examples of this type of group include a support group for people with HIV/AIDS, a book club, or a group for new fathers. Groups faced with problem-solving tasks have to devise a course of action to meet a specific need. These groups also usually include a production and discussion component, but the end goal is not necessarily a tangible product or a shared social reality through discussion. Instead, the end goal is a well-thought-out idea. Task-oriented groups require honed problem-solving skills to accomplish goals, and the structure of these groups is more rigid than that of relational-oriented groups.

To more specifically look at the types of small groups that exist, we can examine why groups form. Some groups are formed based on interpersonal relationships. Our family and friends are considered primary groups , or long-lasting groups that are formed based on relationships and include significant others. We interact most frequently in these small groups. They form the basis of our society and our individual social realities. Kinship networks provide important support early in life and meet physiological and safety needs, which are essential for survival. They also meet higher-order needs such as social and self-esteem needs. When people do not interact with their biological family, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they can establish fictive kinship networks, which are composed of people who are not biologically related but fulfill family roles and help provide the same support.

Groups formed based on shared interest include social groups and leisure groups such as a group of independent film buffs, science fiction fans, or bird watchers. Some groups form to meet the needs of individuals or of a particular group of people. Examples of groups that meet the needs of individuals include study groups or support groups like a weight loss group. These groups are focused on individual needs, even though they meet as a group, and they are also often discussion-oriented. Service groups, on the other hand, work to meet the needs of individuals but are task oriented. Service groups include Habitat for Humanity and Rotary Club chapters, among others. Still other groups form around a shared need, and their primary task is advocacy. For example, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis is a group that was formed by a small group of eight people in the early 1980s to advocate for resources and support for the still relatively unknown disease that would later be known as AIDS. Similar groups form to advocate for everything from a stop sign at a neighborhood intersection to the end of human trafficking.

As we already learned, other groups are formed primarily to accomplish a task. Teams are task-oriented groups in which members are especially loyal and dedicated to the task and other group members (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). In professional and civic contexts, the word team has become popularized as a means of drawing on the positive connotations of the term—connotations such as “high-spirited,” “cooperative,” and “hardworking.” Scholars who have spent years studying highly effective teams have identified several common factors related to their success. Successful teams have clear and inspiring shared goals, a results-driven structure, competent team members, a collaborative climate, high standards for performance, external support and recognition, and ethical and accountable leadership. (Adler & Elmhorst, 2005). Increasingly, small groups and teams are engaging in more virtual interaction. Virtual groups take advantage of new technologies and meet exclusively or primarily online to achieve their purpose or goal. Some virtual groups may complete their task without ever being physically face-to-face.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups

As with anything, small groups have their advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of small groups include shared decision-making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. It is within small groups that most of the decisions that guide our country, introduce local laws, and influence our family interactions are made. In a democratic society, participation in decision-making is a key part of citizenship. Groups also help in making decisions involving judgment calls that have ethical implications or the potential to affect people negatively. Individuals making such high-stakes decisions in a vacuum could have negative consequences given the lack of feedback, input, questioning, and proposals for alternatives that would come from group interaction. Group members also help expand our social networks, which provide access to more resources.

Group communication also presents interpersonal challenges. A common problem is coordinating and planning group meetings due to busy and conflicting schedules. Some people also have difficulty with the other-centeredness and self-sacrifice that some groups require. The interdependence of group members that we discussed earlier can also create some disadvantages. Group members may take advantage of the anonymity of a group and engage in social loafing , meaning they contribute less to the group than other members do or than they would if working alone (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social loafers expect that no one will notice their behaviors or that others will pick up their slack. It is this potential for social loafing that makes many students and professionals dread group work, especially those who have a tendency to cover for other group members to prevent the social loafer from diminishing the group’s productivity or output.

12.3 Small Group Development

Small groups have to start somewhere. Even established groups go through changes as members come and go, as tasks are started and completed, and as relationships change. In this section, we will learn about the stages of group development, which are forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). As with most models of communication phenomena, although we order the stages and discuss them separately, they are not always experienced in a linear fashion. Additionally, some groups do not experience all five stages, may experience stages multiple times, or may experience more than one stage at a time.

Arrow pointing right connecting 5 boxes. Left to right: forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning.

During the forming stage, group members begin to reduce uncertainty associated with new relationships and/ or new tasks through initial interactions that lay the foundation for later group dynamics (Upwork Staff, 2021). Groups return to the forming stage as group members come and go over the life span of a group. Although there may not be as much uncertainty when one or two new people join a group as there is when a group first forms, groups spend some time in the forming stage every time group membership changes.

Early stages of role negotiation begin and members begin to determine goals for the group and establish rules and norms. Group cohesion also begins to form during this stage. Group cohesion refers to the commitment of members to the purpose of the group and the degree of attraction among individuals within the group (Hargie, 2011). The cohesion that begins in this stage sets the group on a trajectory influenced by group members’ feelings about one another and their purpose or task. Groups with voluntary membership may exhibit high levels of optimism about what the group can accomplish. Although the optimism can be motivating, unrealistic expectations can lead to disappointment, making it important for group members to balance optimism with realism. Groups with assigned or mandatory membership may include members that carry some degree of resentment toward the group itself or the goals of the group. These members can start the group off on a negative trajectory that will lessen or make difficult group cohesiveness. Groups can still be successful if these members are balanced out by others who are more committed to and positive in regards to the group’s purpose.

Many factors influence how the forming stage of group development plays out. The personalities of the individuals in the group, the skills that members bring, the resources available to the group, the group’s size, and the group’s charge all contribute to the creation of the early tone of and climate within a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). For example, personalities that are more dominant may take early leadership roles in the group that can affect subsequent decisions. Group members’ diverse skill sets and access to resources can also influence the early stages of role differentiation. In terms of size, the bonding that begins in the forming stage becomes difficult when the number of people within the group prevents every person from having a one-on-one connection with every other member of the group. In addition, in larger groups, members that are more dominant tend to assert themselves as leaders and build smaller coalitions within the group, which can start the group on a trajectory toward more conflict during the upcoming storming stage (Ellis & Fisher, 1994).

During the storming stage of group development, conflict emerges as people begin to perform their various roles, have their ideas heard, and negotiate where they fit in the group’s structure. The uncertainty present in the forming stage begins to give way as people begin to occupy specific roles and the purpose, rules, and norms of a group become clearer. Conflict develops when some group members are not satisfied with the role that they or others are playing or the decisions regarding the purpose or procedures of the group. For example, if a leader begins to emerge or is assigned during the forming stage, some members may feel that the leader is imposing his or her will on other members of the group. As we will learn in our section on group leadership, leaders should expect some degree of resentment from others who wanted to be the leader, have interpersonal conflicts with the leader, or just have general issues with being led.

Although the word storming and the concept of conflict have negative connotations, conflict can be positive and productive. Just as storms can replenish water supplies and make crops grow, storming can lead to group growth. While conflict is inevitable and should be experienced by every group, a group that is stuck at the storming stage will likely not have much success in completing its task or achieving its purpose. Influences from outside the group can also affect the conflict in the storming stage. Interpersonal conflicts that predate the formation of the group may distract the group from the more productive idea- or task-oriented conflict that can be healthy for the group and increase the quality of ideas, decision-making, and output.

During the norming stage of group development, the practices and expectations of the group are solidified, which leads to more stability, productivity, and cohesion within the group. Group norms are behaviors that become routine but are not explicitly taught or stated. In short, group norms help set the tone for what group members ought to do and how they ought to behave (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Many implicit norms are derived from social norms that people follow in their everyday life. Norms within the group about politeness, lateness, and communication patterns are typically similar to those in other contexts. Sometimes a norm needs to be challenged because it is not working for the group, which could lead a group back to the storming stage. Other times, group members challenge norms for no good reason, which can lead to punishment for the group member or create conflict within the group.

At this stage, there is a growing consensus among group members as to the roles that each person will play, the way group interactions will typically play out, and the direction of the group. Leaders that began to emerge have typically gained the support of other group members, and group identity begins to solidify. The group may now be recognizable by those on the outside, as slogans, branding, or patterns of interaction become associated with the group. This stage of group development is key for the smooth operation of the group. Norms bring a sense of predictability and stability that can allow a group to move on to the performing stage of group development. Norms can also bring with them conformity pressures that can be positive or negative. In general, people go along with a certain amount of pressure to conform out of a drive to avoid being abnormal. This is a natural part of our social interaction (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Too much pressure, however, can lead people to feel isolated and can create a negative group climate.

Explicit rules may also guide group interaction. Rules are explicitly stated guidelines for members and may refer to things like expected performance levels or output, attitudes, or dress codes. Rules may be communicated through verbal instructions, employee handbooks, membership policies, or codes of conduct (Hargie, 2011). Groups can even use procedures like Robert’s Rules of Order to manage the flow of conversations and decision-making procedures. Group members can contest or subvert group rules just as they can norms. Violations of group rules, however, typically result in more explicit punishments than do violations of norms.

During the performing stage of group development, group members work relatively smoothly toward the completion of a task or achievement of a purpose (Upwork Staff, 2021). Although interactions in the performing stage are task focused, the relational aspects of group interaction provide an underlying support for the group members. Socialization outside of official group time can serve as a needed relief from the group’s task. During task-related interactions, group members ideally begin to develop a synergy that results from the pooling of skills, ideas, experiences, and resources. Synergy is positive in that it can lead group members to exceed their expectations and perform better than they could individually. Glitches in the group’s performance can lead the group back to previous stages of group development. Changes in membership, member roles, or norms can necessitate a revisiting of aspects of the forming, storming, or norming stages. One way to continue to build group cohesion during the performing stage is to set short-term attainable group goals. Accomplishing something, even if it is small, can boost group morale, which in turn boosts cohesion and productivity.

The adjourning stage of group development occurs when a group dissolves because it has completed its purpose or goal, membership is declining and support for the group no longer exists, or it is dissolved because of some other internal or external cause (Upwork Staff, 2021). Some groups may live on indefinitely and not experience the adjourning stage. Other groups may experience so much conflict in the storming stage that they skip norming and performing and dissolve before they can complete their task. For groups with high social cohesion, adjourning may be a difficult emotional experience. However, group members may continue interpersonal relationships that formed even after the group dissolves. In reality, many bonds, even those that were very close, end up fading after the group disbands. This does not mean the relationship was not genuine; interpersonal relationships often form because of proximity and shared task interaction. Once that force is gone, it becomes difficult to maintain friendships, and many fade away. For groups that had negative experiences, the adjourning stage may be welcomed.

To make the most out of the adjourning stage, it is important that there be some guided and purposeful reflection (Upwork Staff, 2021). Many groups celebrate their accomplishments with a party or ceremony. Even groups that had negative experiences or failed to achieve their purpose can still learn something through reflection in the adjourning stage that may be beneficial for future group interactions. Often, group members leave a group experience with new or more developed skills that can be usefully applied in future group or individual contexts. Even groups that are relational rather than task focused can increase members’ interpersonal, listening, or empathetic skills or increase cultural knowledge and introduce new perspectives.

12.4 Small Group Dynamics

Any time a group of people comes together, new dynamics are put into place that differ from the dynamics present in our typical dyadic interactions (Sidorenkov, 2013). The impressions we form about other people’s likeability and the way we think about a group’s purpose are affected by the climate within a group that is created by all members. Groups also develop norms, and new group members are socialized into a group’s climate and norms just as we are socialized into larger social and cultural norms in our everyday life. The pressure to conform to norms becomes more powerful in group situations, and some groups take advantage of these forces with positive and negative results. Last, the potential for productive and destructive conflict increases as multiple individuals come together to accomplish a task or achieve a purpose. This section explores the dynamics mentioned previously in order to better prepare you for future group interactions.

Group Cohesion and Climate

A group of 6 smiling, fist pumping, and pointing at a computer screen.

When something is cohesive, it sticks together, and the cohesion within a group helps establish an overall group climate. Group climate refers to the relatively enduring tone and quality of group interaction that is experienced similarly by group members. To understand better cohesion and climate, we can examine two types of cohesion: task and social.

Task cohesion refers to the commitment of group members to the purpose and activities of the group. Social cohesion refers to the attraction and liking among group members (Molloy, 2020). Ideally, groups would have an appropriate balance between these two types of cohesion relative to the group’s purpose, with task-oriented groups having higher task cohesion and relational-oriented groups having higher social cohesion. Even the most task-focused groups need some degree of social cohesion, and vice versa, but the balance will be determined by the purpose of the group and the individual members. For example, a team of workers from the local car dealership may join a local summer softball league because they are good friends and love the game. They may end up beating the team of faculty members from the community college who joined the league just to get to know each other better and have an excuse to get together and drink beer in the afternoon. In this example, the players from the car dealership exhibit high social and task cohesion, while the faculty exhibit high social but low task cohesion.

Cohesion benefits a group in many ways and can be assessed through specific group behaviors and characteristics. Groups with an appropriate level of cohesiveness (Hargie, 2011)

set goals easily,
exhibit a high commitment to achieving the purpose of the group,
are more productive,
experience fewer attendance issues,
have group members who are willing to stick with the group during times of difficulty,
have satisfied group members who identify with, promote, and defend the group,
have members who are willing to listen to each other and offer support and constructive criticism, and
experience less anger and tension.

Appropriate levels of group cohesion usually create a positive group climate, since group climate is affected by members’ satisfaction with the group. Climate has also been described as group morale. Following are some qualities that contribute to a positive group climate and morale (Marston & Hecht, 1988):

Participation. Group members feel better when they feel included in discussion and a part of the functioning of the group.
Messages. Confirming messages help build relational dimensions within a group, and clear, organized, and relevant messages help build task dimensions within a group.
Feedback. Positive, constructive, and relevant feedback contribute to group climate.
Equity. Aside from individual participation, group members also like to feel as if participation is managed equally within the group and that appropriate turn taking is used.
Clear and accepted roles. Group members like to know how status and hierarchy operate within a group. Knowing the roles is not enough to lead to satisfaction, though—members must also be comfortable with and accept those roles.
Motivation. Member motivation is activated by perceived connection to and relevance of the group’s goals or purpose.

Socializing Group Members

Group socialization refers to the process of teaching and learning the norms, rules, and expectations associated with group interaction and group member behaviors. Group norms, rules, and cohesion can only be created and maintained through socialization (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). It is also through socialization that a shared identity and social reality develops among group members, but this development is dependent on several factors. For example, groups with higher levels of cohesion are more likely to have members that “buy into” rules and norms, which aids in socialization. The need for socialization also changes throughout a group’s life span. If membership in a group is stable, long-term members should not need much socialization. However, when new members join a group, existing members must take time to engage in socialization. When a new group is formed, socialization will be an ongoing process as group members negotiate rules and procedures, develop norms, and create a shared history over time.

The information exchanged during socialization can be broken down into two general categories: technical and social knowledge (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). Technical knowledge focuses on skills and information needed to complete a task, and social knowledge focuses on behavioral norms that guide interaction. Each type of information is usually conveyed through a combination of formal and informal means. Technical knowledge can be easily passed along through orientations, trainings, manuals, and documents, because this content is often very straightforward. Social knowledge is more ambiguous and is usually conveyed through informal means or passively learned by new members through observation. To return to our earlier terminology, technical knowledge relates more to group rules and social knowledge relates more to group norms.

Socialization continues after initial membership through the enforcement of rules and norms. When someone deviates from the rules and norms and is corrected, it serves as a reminder for all other members and performs a follow-up socializing function. Since rules are explicitly stated and documented, deviation from the rules can have consequences ranging from verbal warnings, to temporary or permanent separation from the group, to fines or other sanctions. Although norms are implicit, deviating from them can still have consequences. Even though someone may not actually verbally correct the deviation, the self-consciousness, embarrassment, or awkwardness that can result from such deviations is often enough to initiate corrective actions. Group norms can be so implicit that they are taken for granted and operate under group members’ awareness.

Group rules and norms provide members with a sense of predictability that helps reduce uncertainty and increase a sense of security for one’s place within the group. They also guide group members’ involvement with the group, help create a shared social reality, and allow the group to function in particular ways without having actual people constantly educating, monitoring, and then correcting member behaviors (Hargie, 2011). Of course, the degree to which this is successful depends on the buy-in from group members.

Group Pressures

There must be some kind of motivating force present within groups in order for the rules and norms to help govern and guide a group. Without such pressure, group members would have no incentive to

conform to group norms or buy into the group’s identity and values. In this section, we will discuss how rules and norms gain their power through internal and external pressures and how these pressures can have positive and negative effects.

In general, some people are more likely to accept norms and rules than others are, which can influence the interaction and potential for conflict within a group. While some people may feel a need for social acceptance that leads them to accept a norm or rule with minimal conformity pressure, others may actively resist because they have a valid disagreement or because they have an aggressive or argumentative personality (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Such personality traits are examples of internal pressures that operate within the individual group member and act as a self-governing mechanism. When group members discipline themselves and monitor their own behavior, groups need not invest in as many external mechanisms to promote conformity. Deviating from the group’s rules and norms that a member internalized during socialization can lead to self-imposed feelings of guilt or shame that can then initiate corrective behaviors and discourage the member from going against the group.

External pressures in the form of group policies, rewards or punishments, or other forces outside of individual group members also exert conformity pressure. In terms of group policies, groups that have an official admission process may have a probation period during which new members’ membership is contingent on them conforming to group expectations. Deviation from expectations during this “trial period” could lead to expulsion from the group. Supervisors, mentors, and other types of group leaders are also agents that can impose external pressures toward conformity. These group members often have the ability to provide positive or negative reinforcement in the form of praise or punishment, which are clear attempts to influence behavior.

Although these pressures may seem negative, they also have positive results. Groups that exert an appropriate and ethical amount of conformity pressure typically have higher levels of group cohesion, which as we learned leads to increased satisfaction with group membership, better relationships, and better task performance. Groups with a strong but healthy level of conformity also project a strong group image to those outside the group, which can raise the group’s profile or reputation (Hargie, 2011). Pressures toward conformity, of course, can go too far, as is evidenced in tragic stories of people driven to suicide because they felt they couldn’t live up to the conformity pressure of their group and people injured or killed enduring hazing rituals that take expectations for group conformity to unethical and criminal extremes.

Groupthink is a negative group phenomenon characterized by a lack of critical evaluation of proposed ideas or courses of action that results from high levels of cohesion and/or high conformity pressures (Janis, 1972). We can better understand groupthink by examining its causes and effects. When group members fall victim to groupthink, the effect is uncritical acceptance of decisions or suggestions for plans of action to accomplish a task or goal. Group meetings that appear to go smoothly with only positive interaction among happy, friendly people may seem ideal, but these actions may be symptomatic of groupthink (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Groupthink occurs when people rush to agreement or fear argument. Decisions made because of groupthink may range from a poorly thought out presentation method that bores the audience to a mechanical failure resulting in death.

Two primary causes of groupthink are high levels of cohesion and excessive conformity pressures. When groups exhibit high levels of social cohesion, members may be reluctant to criticize or question another group member’s ideas or suggestions for fear that it would damage the relationship. When group members have a high level of task cohesion, they may feel invincible and not critically evaluate ideas. High levels of cohesion may actually lessen conformity pressures since group members who identify strongly with the group’s members and mission may not feel a need to question the decisions or suggestions made by others. For those who aren’t blinded by the high levels of cohesion, internal conformity pressures may still lead them to withhold criticism of an idea because the norm is to defer to decisions made by organization leaders or a majority of group members. External conformity pressures because of impending reward or punishment, time pressures, or an aggressive leader are also factors that can lead to groupthink.

Group Conflict

2 people pointing to each other, eyebrows furrowed, mouths open, as if shouting.

Conflict can appear in indirect or direct forms within group interaction, just as it can in interpersonal interactions. Group members may openly question each other’s ideas or express anger toward or dislike for another person. Group members may also indirectly engage in conflict communication through innuendo, joking, or passive-aggressive behavior. Although we often view conflict negatively, conflict can be beneficial for many reasons. When groups get into a rut, lose creativity, or become complacent, conflict can help get a group out of a bad or mediocre routine. Conversely, conflict can lead to lower group productivity due to strain on the task and social dimensions of a group. There are three main types of conflict within groups: procedural, substantive, and interpersonal (Fujishin, 2001). Each of these types of conflict can vary in intensity, which can affect how much the conflict impacts the group and its members.

Procedural Conflict

Substantive Conflict

Substantive conflict focuses on group members’ differing beliefs, attitudes, values, or ideas related to the purpose or task of the group (Burnett, 1993). Rather than focusing on questions of how , substantive conflicts focus on questions of what . Substantive conflicts may emerge as a group tries to determine its purpose or mission. As members figure out how to complete a task or debate which project to start on next, there will undoubtedly be differences of opinion on what something means, what is acceptable in terms of supporting evidence for a proposal, or what is acceptable for a goal or performance standard. Leaders and other group members should not rush to close this type of conflict down. As we learned in our earlier discussion of groupthink, open discussion and debate regarding ideas and suggestions for group action can lead to higher-quality output and may prevent groupthink. Leaders who make final decisions about substantive conflict for the sake of moving on run the risk of creating a win/lose competitive climate in which people feel like their ideas may be shot down, which could lead to less participation. To resolve this type of conflict, group members may want to do research to see what other groups have done in similar situations, as additional information often provides needed context for conflict regarding information and ideas. Once the information is gathered, weigh all proposals and try to discover common ground among perspectives. Civil and open discussions that debate the merits of an idea are more desirable than a climate in which people feel personally judged for their ideas.

Interpersonal Conflict

While procedural and substantive conflict may be more easily expressed because they do not directly address a person, interpersonal conflict may slowly build as people avoid openly criticizing or confronting others. Passive-aggressive behavior is a sign that interpersonal conflict may be building under the surface, and other group members may want to intervene to avoid escalation and retaliation. Leaders can also meet with people involved in interpersonal conflict privately to help them engage in perception checking and act as mediators, if needed. While people who initiate procedural or substantive conflict may be perceived by other group members as concerned about the group’s welfare and seen as competent in their ability to notice areas on which the group could improve, other group members (Ellis & Fisher, 1994) often hold people who initiate interpersonal conflict in ill regard.

Managing Conflict in Small Groups

Some common ways to manage conflict include clear decision-making procedures, third-party mediation, and leader facilitation (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Decision-making is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14 “Leadership, Roles, and Problem Solving in Groups”, but commonly used methods such as majority vote can help or hurt conflict management efforts. While an up-and-down vote can allow a group to finalize a decision and move on, members whose vote fell on the minority side may feel resentment toward other group members. This can create a win/lose climate that leads to further conflict. Having a leader who makes ultimate decisions can also help move a group toward completion of a task, but conflict may only be pushed to the side and left not fully addressed. Third-party mediation can help move a group past a conflict and may create less feelings of animosity, since the person mediating and perhaps making a decision is not a member of the group. In some cases, the leader can act as an internal third-party mediator to help other group members work productively through their conflict.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Conflict

Remember that a complete lack of conflict in a group is a bad sign, as it indicates either a lack of activity or a lack of commitment on the part of the members (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Conflict, when properly handled, can lead a group to have a better understanding of the issues they face. For example, substantive conflict brings voice to alternative perspectives that may not have been heard otherwise. Additionally, when people view conflict as healthy, necessary, and productive, they can enter into a conflict episode with an open mind and an aim to learn something. This is especially true when those who initiate substantive conflict are able to share and defend their views in a competent and civil manner. Group cohesion can also increase because of well-managed conflict. Occasional experiences of tension and unrest followed by resolutions makes groups feel like they have accomplished something, which can lead them to not dread conflict and give them the confidence to more productively deal with it the next time.

Conflict that goes on for too long or is poorly handled can lead to decreased cohesiveness. Group members who try to avoid a conflict can still feel anger or frustration when the conflict drags on. Members who consistently take task-oriented conflict personally and escalate procedural or substantive conflict to interpersonal conflict are especially unpopular with other group members. Mishandled or chronic conflict can eventually lead to the destruction of a group or to a loss in members as people weigh the costs and rewards of membership (Ellis & Fisher, 1994).

Figure 12.1: Small group structures. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 12.2: Group projects are an example of a task-oriented small group. Jason Goodman. 2019. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/bzqU01v-G54

Figure 12.3: Stages of group development. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 12.4: Idyllic groups have an appropriate balance between task cohesion and social cohesion. Windows. 2019. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/p74ndnYWRY4

Figure 12.5: Members of a group experiencing conflict. Afif Kusuma. 2021. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/mv38TB_Ljj8

Sections 12.1-12.2

Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2005). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for businesses and the professions (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management 29 (2), 161-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900203

Barker, D. B. (1991). The behavioral analysis of interpersonal intimacy in group development. Small Group Research, 22 (1), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491221005

Bonito, J. A., & Staggs, S. M. (2018). Interdependence in small group discussion. In E. Brauner, M. Boos, & M. Kolbe (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 354–369). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.018

Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Evans, M. (2019, March 4). Types of small group communication . https://careertrend.com/info-8048059-types-small-group-communication.html

Forsyth, D. R. (2021). The psychology of groups. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. DEF publishers. Retrieved from http://noba.to/trfxbkhm

Girl Scouts of the United States of America. (n.d.). About us . https://www.girlscouts.org/en/discover/about-us.html

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice (5th ed.).Routledge.

Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 41 (2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214559709

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what must go wrong . Sage.

Larson, J. R., Jr. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. Psychology Press.

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: Communication skills book (2nd ed.). New Harbinger Publications.

Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2005). A study of grouphate in a course on small group communication. Psychological Reports 97(2), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.2.381-386

Osborne, K. (2020, May 20). Why people join groups . https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/College_of_the_Canyons/COMS_120%3A_Small_Group_Communication_(Osborn)/02%3A_Reading_Group_Development/2.3%3A_Why_People_Join_Groups

Wakefield, J. R. H., Sani, F., Madhok, V., Norbury, M., Dugard, P., Gabbanelli, C., Arnetoli, M., Beconcini, G., Botindari, L., Grifoni, F., Paoli, P., & Poggesi, F. (2017). The relationship between group identification and satisfaction with life in a cross-cultural community sample. Journal of Happiness Studies , 18 , 785–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9735-z

Section 12.3

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies , 2 (4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404

Upwork Staff. (2021, April 28). The 5 stages of team development (including examples) . https://www.upwork.com/resources/stages-of-team-development

Section 12.4

Burnett, R. E. (1993). Conflict in collaborative decision making. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 144-163). Sage.

Fujishin, R. (2001). Creating effective groups: The art of small group communication . Acada Books.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.

Marston, P. J. and Hecht, M. L. (1988). Group satisfaction. In R. S. Cathcart & L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communication: A reader (5th ed.). William C. Brown.

Molloy, C. (2020, March 22). Task cohesion vs social cohesion . https://cmolloyreflectivecoaching.wordpress.com/2020/03/22/task-cohesion-vs-social-cohesion/

Dynamics of Small Group: Microgroup Theory Approach Dynamics of Small Group: Microgroup Theory Approach

Sidorenkov, A. V. (2013). Dynamics of small group: Microgroup theory approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , 86 , 198-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.550

Refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a common purpose, mutual influence and a shared identity

Which are characterized by less frequent face to face interactions, less emotional and relational communication, and more task related communication than primary groups

Are task-oriented groups in which members are especially loyal and dedicated to the task and other group members

Take advantage of new technologies and meet exclusively or primarily online to achieve their purpose or goal

Refers to the potential for gains in performance or heightened quality of interactions when complementary members or member characteristics are added to existing ones

When a group member contributes less to the group than the other members do or than they would if working along

The stage when group members begin to reduce uncertainty associated with new relationships and/or new tasks through initial interactions that lay the foundation for later group dynamics

Refers to the commitment of members to the purpose of the group and the degree of the attraction among individuals in the group

The stage of group development, when conflict begins to emerge as people begin to perform their various roles, have their ideals heard, and negotiate where they fit in the group’s structure

During this stage of group development, the expectations and norms of the group are clear and understood, allowing for a stable, productive, and cohesive environment

During this stage of group development, members are working towards the final product or goal previously established. They are working towards the completion of the task at hand.

During the adjourning stage, the group dissolves because they finished their task at hand and completed their goal

The relatively enduring tone and quality of the group interactions, it determines how cohesive the group is

Refers to the attraction and liking among group members; relational-oriented groups have higher social-cohesion

Refers to the process of teaching and learning the norms, rules, and expectations associated with group interaction and group member behaviors

A negative group phenomenon characterized by a lack of critical evaluation of proposed ideas or courses of action that result from high levels cohesion and/or high conformity pressures

Emerges from conflict between individual members of the group

Communication in the Real World Copyright © by Faculty members in the School of Communication Studies, James Madison University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Understanding and Applying Fisher’s Model for Small Group Communication: A Thorough Analysis

Overview of small group communication.

Small group communication is defined as the interaction that occurs within groups of three to about 15 individuals. This size is considered optimal because it allows for a range of viewpoints, while still enabling each member to participate and be heard. The group size is small enough for everyone to engage directly with one another, yet large enough to bring diverse skills and perspectives to the group.

Small group communication can occur in various settings such as a workplace team , a committee, a study group, or a sports team. These groups often come together with a common goal or purpose, whether it’s to solve a problem, make a decision, or create something. The nature and quality of communication within these groups can significantly impact the group’s effectiveness and the satisfaction of its members.

In small group communication, members can interact in various ways, such as face-to-face meetings, conference calls, or through digital platforms. Each member’s communication skills, such as their ability to listen, give and receive feedback, and manage conflicts, are crucial in facilitating effective group communication.

It’s important to note that small group communication is not just about talking and exchanging information. It’s also about building relationships, establishing norms, negotiating roles, and influencing one another . Moreover, power dynamics, group stages of development, and cultural factors can also play a significant role in shaping communication within a small group.

In summary, small group communication is a complex, dynamic process that involves much more than the simple transmission of information. It’s about negotiating meanings, managing relationships, and working together towards common goals. It’s an integral part of our personal and professional lives, and mastering it can significantly enhance our effectiveness in various group settings.

Understanding the Basics of Group Communication

Defining small group communication.

Small group communication plays a critical role in both personal and professional contexts, and its importance can’t be overstated. Here’s why:

Problem Solving and Decision Making: Small groups often come together to make decisions or solve problems. They bring together diverse perspectives, knowledge, and skills, enabling them to tackle complex issues that may be beyond the capabilities of an individual.

Team Performance and Productivity: Effective communication within a small group can enhance team performance, increase productivity, and drive innovation. It facilitates coordination, helps in setting and achieving goals, and fosters a cooperative and collaborative work environment.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing: Small group communication also plays a crucial role in learning. Whether in a classroom discussion group, a workplace training session, or a study group, interacting with others can enhance understanding, encourage critical thinking, and facilitate knowledge sharing.

Building Relationships and Trust: Communication within a small group is not just about task completion; it also helps in building relationships. Regular and effective communication helps in developing trust, understanding, and camaraderie among group members.

Conflict Resolution: Differences of opinion are common in small groups . Effective communication helps in resolving conflicts, reconciling differences, and ensuring that all voices are heard. It supports the expression of diverse viewpoints and facilitates negotiation and compromise.

Leadership Development: Small group communication also provides opportunities for leadership development. Leading a group involves a range of communication skills, including facilitating discussions , listening actively, providing feedback, and motivating members.

Personal Growth and Self-Understanding: Participating in small group communication can lead to personal growth and increased self-understanding. Interacting with others provides feedback about our ideas and behavior and gives us opportunities to see things from different perspectives.

Challenges in Small Group Communication

Diverse Perspectives and Conflicts: In small groups, members often come from diverse backgrounds and have different viewpoints. While this diversity can lead to innovative ideas, it can also cause conflicts, misunderstanding, and tension within the group.

Dominance and Power Dynamics: Power dynamics can impact group communication significantly. Some members may try to dominate conversations, while others may be reluctant to share their ideas due to fear of criticism or rejection.

Communication Barriers: Cultural, language, and personal barriers can hinder effective communication. Misunderstandings or misconceptions can arise if group members do not share the same language proficiency or understand each other’s cultural cues.

Groupthink: This is a situation where the desire for harmony and consensus within the group leads to poor decision-making. It happens when group members suppress dissenting viewpoints, leading to a lack of critical thinking and evaluation.

Free Riding: Also known as social loafing, this is a situation where some group members rely on others to do the work. It can lead to resentment and conflict within the group and can impact the overall productivity and effectiveness of the group.

Ineffective Leadership: Leadership plays a crucial role in small group communication. Ineffective leadership can result in lack of direction, poor decision-making, and low group morale.

Difficulty in Coordinating and Scheduling: In our increasingly busy and connected world, finding a common time and place for all group members to meet and communicate can be challenging. This problem can be particularly acute in virtual teams, where members may be spread across different time zones.

Technological Issues: In today’s digital age, much of our group communication happens through digital platforms. Issues like unstable internet connection, poor audio or video quality, and unfamiliarity with digital tools can hamper effective group communication.

Brief Biography of Aubrey Fisher

Aubrey Fisher and His Contribution to Communication Studies

Aubrey Fisher was a well-respected professor and scholar in the field of communication studies. His research focused primarily on small group communication and group decision-making processes.

Aubrey Fisher: A Brief Biography: Fisher served as a professor at the University of Utah for many years, contributing significantly to the development and reputation of their communication department. His extensive research and teaching influenced many students and future scholars in the field.
Fisher’s Decision Emergence Theory: Fisher’s most notable contribution to the field is his Decision Emergence Theory (DET), also commonly referred to as Fisher’s Model. This theory provides a framework for understanding the communication processes and stages that small groups go through when making decisions or solving problems.
Legacy and Impact: Fisher’s work has been widely recognized and used in various contexts, including business, education, and social sciences, to understand and improve small group communication dynamics. His model remains a crucial part of the study and application of small group communication.

Unraveling Fisher’s Model: An Overview

Fisher’s model: the four phases.

Fisher’s Model suggests that small groups go through four distinct phases when making decisions or solving problems:

Orientation Phase: In the orientation phase, group members become acquainted with each other and the task at hand. This phase is characterized by tentative interactions as individuals seek to understand the group’s purpose, establish relationships, and form initial impressions. Communication is often polite and non-committal.

Conflict Phase: As the group delves deeper into the task, different ideas, opinions, and approaches emerge, leading to disagreements or conflicts. In this phase, group members engage in debates and arguments as they explore different perspectives and contest each other’s views. Communication is more assertive and can sometimes be confrontational.

Emergence Phase: After going through the conflict, the group begins to converge towards a decision or solution. Group members start to find common ground, and a sense of agreement starts to emerge. Communication during this phase is often collaborative and consensus-building.

Reinforcement Phase: In this final phase, the group’s decision or solution is solidified and reinforced through positive reactions and affirmations. Group members express satisfaction with the decision and with each other, reinforcing the group’s cohesion and unity. Communication is positive and affirming.

Understanding the Role of Communication in Each Phase

Communication plays a significant role in each of these phases:

Communication in the Orientation Phase: Communication in this phase is about information gathering and relationship building. It involves asking questions, sharing information, expressing preferences, and offering personal information to establish rapport.

Communication in the Conflict Phase: Communication in the conflict phase revolves around expressing differences and managing conflicts. It involves advocating for one’s views, questioning and challenging others’ ideas, providing evidence or arguments, and using conflict resolution skills.

Communication in the Emergence Phase: Communication in the emergence phase focuses on building consensus and making decisions. It involves negotiating, seeking common ground, proposing solutions, and discussing the pros and cons of different options.

Communication in the Reinforcement Phase: Communication in this phase is about reinforcing the group’s decision and relationships. It involves expressing agreement, providing positive feedback, celebrating the group’s accomplishments, and affirming the value of the group and its members.

Fisher’s Model in Practice: Real-world Examples

Fisher’s Model is a versatile tool that can be used to understand and enhance group communication and decision-making in a variety of contexts. Let’s look at how it can be applied in corporate settings, educational groups, and informal small groups.

Applying Fisher’s Model in Corporate Settings

Orientation Phase: In a new project team, members meet for the first time to discuss the project objectives and their roles. They might engage in small talk to build rapport and understand each other’s backgrounds and skills.
Conflict Phase: As the team starts to plan the project, members might have different ideas about the best approach. Debates might ensue over project timelines, resource allocation, or technical solutions.
Emergence Phase: After much discussion and negotiation, the team begins to converge towards a shared plan. Members find common ground, agree on a course of action, and decide on responsibilities.
Reinforcement Phase: The agreed-upon plan is affirmed in a project proposal, and team members express their commitment to the plan and their confidence in the team.

Fisher’s Model in Educational Groups

Orientation Phase: At the start of a group assignment, students come together to understand the assignment requirements and get to know each other.
Conflict Phase: Disagreements may arise over the assignment’s interpretation, the division of labor, or the approach to the task.
Emergence Phase: The group eventually settles on an approach, assigns tasks, and agrees on a timeline for completion.
Reinforcement Phase: The group’s decisions are affirmed, and members express their readiness to work together to complete the assignment.

Use of Fisher’s Model in Informal Small Groups

Orientation Phase: A group of friends decides to plan a trip together. Initially, they discuss their preferences, availability, and budget constraints.
Conflict Phase: Disagreements might occur over the choice of destination, the travel dates, or the budget.
Emergence Phase: After discussing various options, the friends agree on a destination, dates, and budget that work for everyone.
Reinforcement Phase: The group’s decisions are solidified as they start booking tickets and accommodations, and they express excitement about the upcoming trip.

Comparing Fisher’s Model with Other Small Group Communication Models

Criticisms and limitations of fisher’s model.

While Fisher’s Model is widely recognized for its insights into small group communication, it is not without its criticisms and limitations:

Sequentiality: Fisher’s Model assumes that groups move through the four phases in a sequential and linear manner. However, in practice, group communication and decision-making can often be non-linear and iterative, with groups moving back and forth between different stages based on new information, changing circumstances, or conflicts.

Conflict Representation: While the model acknowledges the role of conflict in group decision-making, it assumes that conflict primarily occurs in one phase (the conflict phase) and then gets resolved. In reality, conflicts can arise at any point in the group process and may not always be fully resolved.

Role of Individual Differences: Fisher’s Model doesn’t fully account for the impact of individual differences on group communication. Factors like personality traits, communication styles, cultural backgrounds, power dynamics, and interpersonal relationships can significantly influence the group process and may not be adequately captured by the model.

Lack of Emphasis on External Factors: The model doesn’t explicitly address the influence of external factors on group communication and decision-making. Factors such as organizational culture , leadership, and environmental pressures can significantly impact the group’s process and outcomes.

Limited Applicability: While the model is applicable in a variety of small group contexts, its relevance and accuracy may be limited in larger groups or complex organizational settings, where decision-making processes are more complicated and involve multiple sub-groups and levels.

Future Directions for Small Group Communication Studies

The field of small group communication continues to evolve, with new research directions emerging based on changes in our society, technology, and understanding of human behavior. Here are some potential future directions for the field:

Digital and Virtual Group Communication: With the rise of remote work and virtual teams, there’s a growing need to understand the dynamics of small group communication in digital spaces. Future research might explore how communication behaviors, norms, and dynamics differ in virtual groups and how to enhance virtual group communication and collaboration.

Cross-cultural and Diverse Group Communication: As our society becomes more diverse and globally interconnected, understanding how to navigate cultural differences in small group communication is increasingly important. Future studies might investigate how cultural values, norms, and practices influence group communication and decision-making and how to foster effective communication in diverse groups.

Artificial Intelligence in Group Communication: The incorporation of AI in group tasks and decision-making processes is a fascinating area for future research. This includes studying how AI might influence group dynamics, roles, and communication processes, and how groups can effectively interact with AI tools.

Influence of Social Media on Group Communication: Social media platforms have become common tools for small group communication. Future research could explore the impact of social media on group dynamics, such as how it affects group cohesion, conflict, decision-making, and other aspects of group communication.

Group Communication and Mental Health: As awareness of mental health issues grows, there is increasing interest in understanding the role of group communication in supporting mental well-being. This might involve studying how communication in therapy groups, support groups, or even work groups can contribute to or detract from individuals’ mental health.

Sustainable and Environmental Group Decision-Making: In the face of global environmental challenges, understanding how groups make decisions related to sustainability and environmental conservation is becoming more crucial. Research might focus on how groups communicate and make decisions about environmental policies, sustainable practices, or climate change mitigation strategies

Samrat is a Delhi-based MBA from the Indian Institute of Management. He is a Strategy, AI, and Marketing Enthusiast and passionately writes about core and emerging topics in Management studies. Reach out to his LinkedIn for a discussion or follow his Quora Page

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

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.1: Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 53875

Kerry Osborne
College of the Canyons

Learning Objectives

Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.
Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.

Group Problem Solving

Problems of all sorts have three common components :

An undesirable situation . When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
A desired situation . Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation . These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance. Katherine Adams and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 222–23.

Task difficulty . Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
Number of possible solutions . There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
Group member interest in problem . When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
Group familiarity with problem . Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
Need for solution acceptance . In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process. Ernest G. Bormann and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication, 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13. As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way. Katherine Adams and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 229. At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement. Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

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

“Getting Competent” - Problem Solving and Group Presentations

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

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn’t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group’s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings. Chaunce Stanton, “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills, November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012,  http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people’s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members’ commitment.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn’t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space. Chaunce Stanton, “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills, November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012,  http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach . In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his or her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they aren’t fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you’re going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don’t want presenters huddled in a corner until it’s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.

Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?
Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making. Rodney W. Napier and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292. Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they’ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective:

Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming.

Do a warm-up brainstorming session . Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should only go on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
Do the actual brainstorming session . This session shouldn’t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
Eliminate duplicate ideas . After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas . Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn’t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract and can’t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to not throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members. Andre L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92. This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

Silently and individually list ideas.
Create a master list of ideas.
Clarify ideas as needed.
Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn’t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they’ve finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 8.1 "Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques" reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn’t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn’t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that’s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

“Getting Critical” - Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts. Edward de Bono, Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

White hat . Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
Red hat . Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
Black hat . Negative—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
Yellow hat . Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
Green hat . Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
Blue hat . Philosophical—uses meta-communication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” in order to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

This decision-making method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision Making

A group’s situational context affects decision making. One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members can’t know what other group members are thinking, whether or not they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. So the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

Something goes wrong . Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
Expectations change or increase . Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase . Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
The problem existed from the beginning . Group members must go back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious.

The economic decision maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
The aesthetic decision maker makes decisions based on form and harmony, desiring a solution that is elegant and in sync with the surroundings.
The theoretical decision maker wants to discover the truth through rationality.
The social decision maker emphasizes the personal impact of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
The political decision maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or property as divided into groups that have different value.
The religious decision maker seeks to identify with a larger purpose, works to unify others under that goal, and commits to a viewpoint, often denying one side and being dedicated to the other.

In the United States, economic, political, and theoretical decision making tend to be more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on competition and efficiency. But situational context, as we discussed before, can also influence our decision making.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional. John F. Cragan and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Groups: Theory, Practice, Skills, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999), 139. The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

Dominant versus submissive . Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more direct eye contact, seek leadership positions, and take control over decision-making processes. More submissive members are reserved, contribute to the group only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and leave their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
Friendly versus unfriendly . Group members on the friendly side of the continuum find a balance between talking and listening, don’t try to win at the expense of other group members, are flexible but not weak, and value democratic decision making. Unfriendly group members are disagreeable, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct it in their own interest rather than in the interest of the group.
Instrumental versus emotional . Instrumental group members are emotionally neutral, objective, analytical, task-oriented, and committed followers, which leads them to work hard and contribute to the group’s decision making as long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional group members are creative, playful, independent, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist group norms or decision-making structures, and switch often from relational to task focus.

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups. Brenda J. Allen, Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity, 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5. Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups. Beth Bonniwell Haslett and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research, ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133. Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives. David C. Thomas, “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63. Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone doesn’t like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters. Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly.Beth Bonniwell Haslett and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research, ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 122.

Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are more similar than different in terms of race and age. This ease of communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice some creativity. As we learned earlier, groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision making and creativity of output.

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her.Brenda J. Allen, Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity, 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 176. The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

The Silent Generation . Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their mid-sixties to mid-eighties, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War. Gerald Clarke, “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.
The Baby Boomers . Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to mid-sixties, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
Generation X . Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to mid-forties, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
Generation Y . Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just starting to enter into the workforce and have been greatly affected by the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions.

Key Takeaways

Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every problem also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.
The group problem-solving process has five steps:
Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.
Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
Scenario 1 . Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
Scenario 2 . Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
Scenario 1 : Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
Scenario 2 : Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
Scenario 3 : Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
Scenario 4 : Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Contributors and Attributions

Template:ContribCCComm120

14 Best Team Building Problem Solving Group Activities For 2024

The best teams see solutions where others see problems. A great company culture is built around a collaborative spirit and the type of unity it takes to find answers to the big business questions.

So how can you get team members working together?

How can you develop a mentality that will help them overcome obstacles they have yet to encounter?

One of the best ways to improve your teams’ problem solving skills is through team building problem solving activities .

“86% of employees and executives cite lack of collaboration or ineffective communication for workplace failures.” — Bit.AI

These activities can simulate true-to-life scenarios they’ll find themselves in, or the scenarios can call on your employees or coworkers to dig deep and get creative in a more general sense.

The truth is, on a day-to-day basis, you have to prepare for the unexpected. It just happens that team building activities help with that, but are so fun that they don’t have to feel like work ( consider how you don’t even feel like you’re working out when you’re playing your favorite sport or doing an exercise you actually enjoy! )

Team Building Problem Solving Group Activities

What are the benefits of group problem-solving activities?

The benefits of group problem-solving activities for team building include:

Better communication
Improved collaboration and teamwork
More flexible thinking
Faster problem-solving
Better proactivity and decision making

Without further ado, check out this list of the 14 best team-building problem-solving group activities for 2024!

Page Contents (Click To Jump)

2. Problem-Solving Templates

Problem-Solving Templates are popular problem-solving activities that involve a group of people working together to solve an issue. The challenge generally involves members of the team utilizing pre-made templates and creating solutions for a given problem with the help of visual aids.

This activity is great for teams that need assistance in getting started on their problem-solving journey.

Why this is a fun problem-solving activity: Problem-Solving Templates offer teams an easy and stress-free way to get the creative juices flowing. The visual aids that come with the templates help team members better understand the issue at hand and easily come up with solutions together.

This activity is great for teams that need assistance in getting started on their problem-solving journey, as it provides an easy and stress-free way to get the creative juices flowing.

Problem Solving Group Activities & Games For Team Building

3. coworker feud, “it’s all fun and games”.

Coworker Feud is a twist on the classic Family Feud game show! This multiple rapid round game keeps the action flowing and the questions going. You can choose from a variety of customizations, including picking the teams yourself, randomized teams, custom themes, and custom rounds.

Best for: Hybrid teams

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Coworker Feud comes with digital game materials, a digital buzzer, an expert host, and a zoom link to get the participants ready for action! Teams compete with each other to correctly answer the survey questions. At the end of the game, the team with the most competitive answers is declared the winner of the Feud.

How to get started:

Sign up for Coworker Feud
Break into teams of 4 to 10 people
Get the competitive juices flowing and let the games begin!

Learn more here: Coworker Feud

4. Crack The Case

“who’s a bad mamma jamma”.

Crack The Case is a classic WhoDoneIt game that forces employees to depend on their collective wit to stop a deadly murderer dead in his tracks! Remote employees and office commuters can join forces to end this crime spree.

Best for: Remote teams

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: The Virtual Clue Murder Mystery is an online problem solving activity that uses a proprietary videoconferencing platform to offer the chance for employees and coworkers to study case files, analyze clues, and race to find the motive, the method, and the individual behind the murder of Neil Davidson.

Get a custom quote here
Download the app
Let the mystery-solving collaboration begin!

Learn more here: Crack The Case

5. Catch Meme If You Can

“can’t touch this”.

Purposefully created to enhance leadership skills and team bonding , Catch Meme If You Can is a hybrid between a scavenger hunt and an escape room . Teammates join together to search for clues, solve riddles, and get out — just in time!

Best for: Small teams

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Catch Meme If You Can is an adventure with a backstory. Each team has to submit their answer to the puzzle in order to continue to the next part of the sequence. May the best team escape!

The teams will be given instructions and the full storyline
Teams will be split into a handful of people each
The moderator will kick off the action!

Learn more here: Catch Meme If You Can

6. Puzzle Games

“just something to puzzle over”.

Puzzle Games is the fresh trivia game to test your employees and blow their minds with puzzles, jokes , and fun facts!

Best for: In-person teams

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Eight mini brain teaser and trivia style games include word puzzles, name that nonsense, name that tune, and much more. Plus, the points each team earns will go towards planting trees in the precious ecosystems and forests of Uganda

Get a free consultation for your team
Get a custom designed invitation for your members
Use the game link
Dedicated support will help your team enjoy Puzzle Games to the fullest!

Learn more here: Puzzle Games

7. Virtual Code Break

“for virtual teams”.

Virtual Code Break is a virtual team building activity designed for remote participants around the globe. Using a smart video conferencing solution, virtual teams compete against each other to complete challenges, answer trivia questions, and solve brain-busters!

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Virtual Code Break can be played by groups as small as 4 people all the way up to more than 1,000 people at once. However, every team will improve their communication and problem-solving skills as they race against the clock and depend on each other’s strengths to win!

Reach out for a free consultation to align the needs of your team
An event facilitator will be assigned to handle all of the set-up and logistics
They will also provide you with logins and a play-by-play of what to expect
Sign into the Outback video conferencing platform and join your pre-assigned team
Lastly, let the games begin!

Learn more here: Virtual Code Break

8. Stranded

“survivor: office edition”.

Stranded is the perfect scenario-based problem solving group activity. The doors of the office are locked and obviously your team can’t just knock them down or break the windows.

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Your team has less than half an hour to choose 10 items around the office that will help them survive. They then rank the items in order of importance. It’s a bit like the classic game of being lost at sea without a lifeboat.

Get everyone together in the office
Lock the doors
Let them start working together to plan their survival

Learn more here: Stranded

9. Letting Go Game

“for conscious healing”.

The Letting Go Game is a game of meditation and mindfulness training for helping teammates thrive under pressure and reduce stress in the process. The tasks of the Letting Go Game boost resiliency, attentiveness, and collaboration.

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Expert-guided activities and awareness exercises encourage team members to think altruistically and demonstrate acts of kindness. Between yoga, face painting, and fun photography, your employees or coworkers will have more than enough to keep them laughing and growing together with this mindfulness activity!

Reach out for a free consultation
A guide will then help lead the exercises
Let the funny videos, pictures, and playing begin!

Learn more here: Letting Go Game

10. Wild Goose Chase

“city time”.

Wild Goose Chase is the creative problem solving activity that will take teams all around your city and bring them together as a group! This scavenger hunt works for teams as small as 10 up to groups of over 5000 people.

Best for: Large teams

Why this is an effective group problem solving activity: As employees and group members are coming back to the office, there are going to be times that they’re itching to get outside. Wild Goose Chase is the perfect excuse to satisfy the desire to go out-of-office every now and then. Plus, having things to look at and see around the city will get employees talking in ways they never have before.

Download the Outback app to access the Wild Goose Chase
Take photos and videos from around the city
The most successful team at completing challenges on time is the champ!

Learn more here: Wild Goose Chase

11. Human Knot

“for a knotty good time”.

The Human Knot is one of the best icebreaker team building activities! In fact, there’s a decent chance you played it in grade school. It’s fun, silly, and best of all — free!

Why this is an effective group problem solving activity: Participants start in a circle and connect hands with two other people in the group to form a human knot. The team then has to work together and focus on clear communication to unravel the human knot by maneuvering their way out of this hands-on conundrum. But there’s a catch — they can’t let go of each other’s hands in this team building exercise.

Form a circle
Tell each person to grab a random hand until all hands are holding another
They can’t hold anyone’s hand who is directly next to them
Now they have to get to untangling
If the chain breaks before everyone is untangled, they have to start over again

Learn more here: Human Knot

12. What Would You Do?

“because it’s fun to imagine”.

What Would You Do? Is the hypothetical question game that gets your team talking and brainstorming about what they’d do in a variety of fun, intriguing, and sometimes, whacky scenarios.

Best for: Distributed teams

Why this is an effective group problem solving activity: After employees or coworkers start talking about their What Would You Do? responses, they won’t be able to stop. That’s what makes this such an incredible team building activity . For example, you could ask questions like “If you could live forever, what would you do with your time?” or “If you never had to sleep, what would you do?”

In addition to hypothetical questions, you could also give teammates some optional answers to get them started
After that, let them do the talking — then they’ll be laughing and thinking and dreaming, too!

13. Crossing The River

“quite the conundrum”.

Crossing The River is a river-crossing challenge with one correct answer. Your team gets five essential elements — a chicken, a fox, a rowboat, a woman, and a bag of corn. You see, the woman has a bit of a problem, you tell them. She has to get the fox, the bag of corn, and the chicken to the other side of the river as efficiently as possible.

Why this is an effective group problem solving activity: She has a rowboat, but it can only carry her and one other item at a time. She cannot leave the chicken and the fox alone — for obvious reasons. And she can’t leave the chicken with the corn because it will gobble it right up. So the question for your team is how does the woman get all five elements to the other side of the river safely in this fun activity?

Form teams of 2 to 5 people
Each team has to solve the imaginary riddle
Just make sure that each group understands that the rowboat can only carry one animal and one item at a time; the fox and chicken can’t be alone; and the bag of corn and the chicken cannot be left alone
Give the verbal instructions for getting everything over to the other side

14. End-Hunger Games

“philanthropic fun”.

Does anything bond people quite like acts of kindness and compassion? The End-Hunger Games will get your team to rally around solving the serious problem of hunger.

Best for: Medium-sized teams

Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Teams join forces to complete challenges based around non-perishable food items in the End-Hunger Games. Groups can range in size from 25 to more than 2000 people, who will all work together to collect food for the local food bank.

Split into teams and compete to earn boxes and cans of non-perishable food
Each team attempts to build the most impressive food item construction
Donate all of the non-perishable foods to a local food bank

Learn more here: End-Hunger Games

Q: What kind of skills do group problem solving activities & games improve?

A: Group problem solving activities and games improve collaboration, leadership, and communication skills.

Q: What are problem solving based team building activities & games?

A: Problem solving based team building activities and games are activities that challenge teams to work together in order to complete them.

Q: What are some fun free problem solving games for groups?

A: Some fun free problem solving games for groups are kinesthetic puzzles like the human knot game, which you can read more about in this article. You can also use all sorts of random items like whiteboards, straws, building blocks, sticky notes, blindfolds, rubber bands, and legos to invent a game that will get the whole team involved.

Q: How do I choose the most effective problem solving exercise for my team?

A: The most effective problem solving exercise for your team is one that will challenge them to be their best selves and expand their creative thinking.

Q: How do I know if my group problem solving activity was successful?

A: In the short-term, you’ll know if your group problem solving activity was successful because your team will bond over it; however, that should also translate to more productivity in the mid to long-term.

Interested in a content partnership? Let’s chat!

Get Started

About SnackNation

SnackNation is a healthy office snack delivery service that makes healthy snacking fun, life more productive, and workplaces awesome. We provide a monthly, curated selection of healthy snacks from the hottest, most innovative natural food brands in the industry, giving our members a hassle-free experience and delivering joy to their offices.

🗓️ The Effective Guide for Mastering Executive Calendar Management in 2024

🛠️ 14 Best Productivity Templates for Maximum Efficiency in 2024

15 Team Building Games For Small Groups That Don’t Suck

Revitalize your team dynamics with these 15 engaging and downright fun team building games designed for small groups . Say goodbye to dull icebreakers and hello to activities that truly bond and inspire your team!

Elephant and mouse as a symbol for team building games for small groups

Team building games are an excellent way to foster a sense of unity and collaboration within your team. Not only do they promote communication and trust, but they also make work fun and enjoyable. However, finding the right team building games for small groups can be a challenge. Fear not! We’ve got you covered. In this article, we’ll introduce you to the best team building games for small groups, which are not only fun, but also highly effective. Let the games begin!

🫂 More team building ideas:

25+ Team Building Games
The Ultimate List of Team Building Online Games
Virtual Kickoff Meeting Games
7 Team Building Ideas for Students
8 Team Building Games Without Materials
Fun Group Games for Adults
10 Big Group Games
5-15 Minute Team Building Exercises

Why Team Building Games are Essential for Small Groups

Team building games are not just a fun activity to pass the time. They play a crucial role in the development of small groups.

Communication : Games help team members open up, communicate better and understand each other.
Trust : Trust is the foundation of any successful team. Team building games help to build trust among team members.
Team spirit : Playing together creates a sense of unity and team spirit.
Problem-solving : Many team building games require problem-solving, which is a crucial skill in the workplace.

Overall, team building games help to create a positive and productive work environment, especially in small groups where the interaction among team members is particularly important.

No worries, our team’s here to help, and there’s zero obligation. Reach out today!

Team building games for small groups: Challenges

While the benefits of team building are clear, it’s important to note that small group activities also come with their own set of unique challenges. When working with small teams, it can be difficult to find the right balance between competition and cooperation . Additionally, smaller groups may have a harder time coming up with innovative solutions and ideas. It is also difficult to find the right small group team building activities.

Challenges include:

However, despite these challenges, it is possible to create effective team building activities that are specifically designed for small groups. By focusing on the unique dynamics of small teams and tailoring activities to address their specific needs, companies can help their employees develop the skills and relationships they need to work together effectively and achieve their shared goals.

Characteristics of good team building games for small groups

When it comes to team building games for small groups, certain characteristics are particularly important for their success. Since we are talking about only a few people, the dynamics and interaction between the team members are of great importance. The games should promote communication, trust and collaboration. In addition, they must be suitable for the group size, as not all team building games are equally effective for small teams. Furthermore, the games should be fun and engaging, as this is the best way to motivate team members to participate and actively get involved in the activities. Lastly, the games should have a clear goal or learning objective, so that the team can benefit from the games in the long run. This could be, for example, improving problem-solving skills, strengthening the team spirit or promoting creativity.

Characteristics of Team Building Games for Small Groups

The Best Team Building Games for Small Groups

The great news is that there is a wide variety of team building games for small groups , so you can choose the ones that best suit your team and your goals. The games we present here are suitable for groups of 4 to 10 people.

1. Blind Drawing

Blind Drawing is a simple yet effective team building game that only requires paper, pens and a blindfold. Each team member is paired with another and one of them is blindfolded. The seeing team member then describes an object or shape to the blindfolded person, who has to draw it without being able to see it. This game helps to improve communication and trust within the team.

Participants: 2+

Format: offline, fun factor: ⭐⭐⭐⭐, 2. monax island.

Looking for a fun & quick team experience that is perfect for smaller teams? Then the fun co-op team building game Monax Island could be perfect for you. The levels are free, do not require any set-up and are ideal for a fun team building boost during everyday work. The online game has an integrated video function, so it is ideal for remote & hybrid teams. The fun “Escape Island” storyline is engaging and promotes collaboration, which is essential on Monax Island. Psst: there’s also a secret species on the island that’s out to get. The rest you have to find out for yourself. 😉

Monax island as the perfect team building game for small groups.

Format: Online

Fun factor: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐, 3. minefield.

The minefield game is a great way to improve trust and communication in the team. For this game, you will need an empty room or outdoor space and various objects that can be used as obstacles, such as chairs, cones or ropes. The aim is to create a kind of “minefield” that the team members have to cross blindfolded. One team member is blindfolded and the others give him instructions on how to navigate the minefield without touching any obstacles. This game requires precise communication and trust in the instructions of the team members.

Participants: 4+

4. egg drop.

The Egg Drop game is not only fun, but also promotes creativity and teamwork. You will need a few simple materials for this game, such as raw eggs, straws, tape, and paper. The task of the teams is to build a construction from these materials to protect a raw egg from breaking when dropped from a certain height. This game encourages creative problem-solving and teamwork, as team members must work together to develop and implement a successful strategy.

5. Team Quiz

A team quiz is a great way to combine fun with learning. You can create your own quiz or use ready-made templates on various topics , including general knowledge, company history, or industry-specific topics. The quiz can include not only questions, but also interactive tasks and riddles that the teams have to solve together. This game not only promotes team spirit, but also the exchange of knowledge and information among team members.

Format: Online & offline

6. paper tower.

The Paper Tower game is a simple, yet challenging team building exercise that only requires a few sheets of paper. The task is for the teams to build the tallest possible tower using only the paper and a few additional materials such as scissors and tape. This game promotes creativity, collaboration and competition within the team. It’s a great way to see which team can come up with the most stable and tallest structure with limited resources.

7. Memory Wall

The Memory Wall game is a creative team building activity that requires little preparation. All you need is paper, pens, and a large wall or whiteboard. The task is for each team member to write down a positive or funny memory from their lives or work on a piece of paper and stick it on the wall. The team members then take turns reading the memories aloud and guessing who wrote them. This game helps to strengthen the team spirit and create a positive atmosphere by sharing personal memories.

Wall with memories as a symbol for the team building exercise

8. Scavenger Hunt

A scavenger hunt is not only one of the most popular team building activities, but also one of the most versatile. You can organize it both indoors and outdoors and adapt it to your specific goals. For example, you can create a scavenger hunt in the office or in the city where the team members have to solve riddles, find clues, and complete tasks at different stations. This game promotes teamwork, problem-solving, and a little competition.

9. Storytelling

Storytelling is an engaging team building activity that helps team members improve their communication and listening skills. The game begins with a team member starting a story with a sentence or two. Then the next team member continues the story and so on. This can lead to funny, creative or even completely absurd stories. The game not only promotes communication and teamwork , but also shows the different perspectives and ideas of the team members.

10. Geocaching

Geocaching is a modern and exciting outdoor activity that is perfect for small groups. It is a real-life treasure hunt , where participants use GPS devices or smartphones to locate hidden containers (geocaches) in the environment. Geocaching is a great way to encourage team members to work together, as they have to navigate, solve clues and overcome obstacles to find the caches. This activity not only promotes team spirit, but also allows team members to experience nature and their surroundings in a new and exciting way.

11. Team Challenge

A team challenge is a versatile and effective team building activity that can be customized to the specific needs of your team. It can consist of various tasks and obstacles that the team has to overcome together, such as rope courses, climbing walls or problem-solving exercises. Team challenges are ideal for small groups, as they promote collaboration, trust and leadership skills . Team members can support each other, overcome fears and push their limits together. At the same time, these challenges are fun and create a sense of achievement when the team successfully completes them.

Participants: 6+

12. improv games.

Improvisation games, also known as improv games, are a creative and entertaining way to improve communication and spontaneity within a team. They are particularly well-suited for small groups, as they do not require any special equipment and can be easily implemented in any setting. In improv games, team members engage in activities like storytelling, role-playing and quick thinking , without any preparation. This not only encourages creativity, but also helps to reduce inhibitions and build trust among team members. Improv games are not only fun, but also promote active listening and the ability to react to unexpected situations, which are important skills in a team.

13. Cooking class

A cooking class is a delicious and social way to strengthen the collaboration within a small team. During a cooking class, team members work together to prepare a meal under the guidance of a professional chef. This activity promotes communication and coordination within the team, as team members have to plan, organize and prepare the meal together. Cooking together creates a relaxed and informal atmosphere, where team members can get to know each other better and strengthen their relationships. In addition, it is a great way to discover and promote hidden talents within the team. After the cooking class, the team can enjoy the fruits of their labor together and celebrate their joint success.

14. Team Olympics

The Team Olympics are a fun and competitive way to encourage team spirit and collaboration in a small group. You can organize your own “Olympics” with various team building games and challenges, or participate in pre-arranged team building events that follow this theme. The games can be varied and include a wide range of activities, such as relay races, tug-of-war, sack races, or memory and puzzle games. The Team Olympics are a great way to bring out the team’s competitive spirit and at the same time emphasize the importance of working together. These games are not only fun, but also promote team dynamics and the willingness to support each other, as the team members compete in teams and cheer each other on.

15. Team-Building Workshops

Team building workshops are structured sessions that focus on improving specific aspects of team dynamics and performance. These workshops can cover a wide range of topics, such as communication, conflict resolution , leadership development, or stress management. The advantage of team building workshops is that they are tailored to the specific needs of the team and can be highly effective in addressing particular challenges or goals. Workshops are usually interactive and may include group discussions, exercises, and role-plays. Team members not only have the opportunity to connect with each other, but also to learn and practice new skills that can be applied directly to their work.

Fun factor: ⭐⭐⭐

💡why team building is a smart investment.

One of the key factors that contribute to the success of any business or organization is the ability of its teams to work together efficiently. This is true not only in terms of completing tasks and achieving goals, but also in terms of fostering innovation and creativity. Team building games offer a number of benefits to companies looking to improve the performance of their teams, including:

By investing in team building activities and games, companies can help their employees develop the skills and relationships necessary to work together effectively. This can lead to improved productivity, higher levels of job satisfaction, and ultimately, greater success for the business as a whole.

Team building games are essential for the development of small groups, as they promote communication, trust and team spirit. The best games for small groups are those that are fun and at the same time improve important work skills. With the right games, you can create a positive and productive work environment while making your team feel like a real team. So, go ahead and try some of our game suggestions. We promise you and your team will have a blast!

VIDEO: How to structure small teams for growth

Teambuilding activities.

🤝 Get2Know Games
🎄 Christmas Travel Quiz
🌎 Team Travel Quiz
🚀 Spaceship
🎅 Santa’s Online Team Challenge
🕵️‍♂️ Team Memory Hunt

teamazing formats

Virtual Team Development
Virtual Teambuilding Events
Virtual Event Hosting
Jobs & Careers
Amazing Teams
Newsletter (Monthly Digest)
Team Development in a Nutshell

Trending Blogposts

Effective Employee Performance Reviews for Managers
Organizational Structures: Types and Complete Overview
The best virtual kickoff meeting games to start the new year with your team
Understanding New Work: What employees really want and why
Bad Leadership Examples: 9 Ultimate Warning Signs
Managing Virtual Teams: A guide to Success
The Ultimate List of Online Team Building Games and Remote Team Activities
What is Team Building?

lightbulb on a rocket symbolizes innovation management

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

13.3 Small Group Dynamics

Learning objectives.

Explain the relationship between group cohesion and group climate.
Describe the process of group member socialization.
Explain the relationship between conformity and groupthink.
Define various types of group conflict and identify strategies for managing each type.

Any time a group of people come together, new dynamics are put into place that differ from the dynamics present in our typical dyadic interactions. The impressions we form about other people’s likeability and the way we think about a group’s purpose are affected by the climate within a group that is created by all members. Groups also develop norms, and new group members are socialized into a group’s climate and norms just as we are socialized into larger social and cultural norms in our everyday life. The pressure to conform to norms becomes more powerful in group situations, and some groups take advantage of these forces with positive and negative results. Last, the potential for productive and destructive conflict increases as multiple individuals come together to accomplish a task or achieve a purpose. This section explores the dynamics mentioned previously in order to better prepare you for future group interactions.

Group Cohesion and Climate

When something is cohesive, it sticks together, and the cohesion within a group helps establish an overall group climate. Group climate refers to the relatively enduring tone and quality of group interaction that is experienced similarly by group members. To better understand cohesion and climate, we can examine two types of cohesion: task and social.

Task cohesion refers to the commitment of group members to the purpose and activities of the group. Social cohesion refers to the attraction and liking among group members. Ideally, groups would have an appropriate balance between these two types of cohesion relative to the group’s purpose, with task-oriented groups having higher task cohesion and relational-oriented groups having higher social cohesion. Even the most task-focused groups need some degree of social cohesion, and vice versa, but the balance will be determined by the purpose of the group and the individual members. For example, a team of workers from the local car dealership may join a local summer softball league because they’re good friends and love the game. They may end up beating the team of faculty members from the community college who joined the league just to get to know each other better and have an excuse to get together and drink beer in the afternoon. In this example, the players from the car dealership exhibit high social and task cohesion, while the faculty exhibit high social but low task cohesion.

Cohesion benefits a group in many ways and can be assessed through specific group behaviors and characteristics. Groups with an appropriate level of cohesiveness (Hargie, 2011)

set goals easily;
exhibit a high commitment to achieving the purpose of the group;
are more productive;
experience fewer attendance issues;
have group members who are willing to stick with the group during times of difficulty;
have satisfied group members who identify with, promote, and defend the group;
have members who are willing to listen to each other and offer support and constructive criticism; and
experience less anger and tension.

Participation. Group members feel better when they feel included in discussion and a part of the functioning of the group.
Messages. Confirming messages help build relational dimensions within a group, and clear, organized, and relevant messages help build task dimensions within a group.
Feedback. Positive, constructive, and relevant feedback contribute to group climate.
Equity. Aside from individual participation, group members also like to feel as if participation is managed equally within the group and that appropriate turn taking is used.
Clear and accepted roles. Group members like to know how status and hierarchy operate within a group. Knowing the roles isn’t enough to lead to satisfaction, though—members must also be comfortable with and accept those roles.
Motivation. Member motivation is activated by perceived connection to and relevance of the group’s goals or purpose.

Cohesion and shared identity help create symbolic convergence as group members develop a group identity and shared social reality.

Ram K – Watching the big game – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Group cohesion and climate is also demonstrated through symbolic convergence (Bormann, 1985). Symbolic convergence refers to the sense of community or group consciousness that develops in a group through non-task-related communication such as stories and jokes. The originator of symbolic convergence theory, Ernest Bormann, claims that the sharing of group fantasies creates symbolic convergence. Fantasy , in this sense, doesn’t refer to fairy tales, sexual desire, or untrue things. In group communication, group fantasies are verbalized references to events outside the “here and now” of the group, including references to the group’s past, predictions for the future, or other communication about people or events outside the group (Griffin, 2009). For example, as a graduate student, I spent a lot of time talking with others in our small group about research, writing, and other things related to our classes and academia in general. Most of this communication wouldn’t lead to symbolic convergence or help establish the strong social bonds that we developed as a group. Instead, it was our grad student “war stories” about excessive reading loads and unreasonable paper requirements we had experienced in earlier years of grad school, horror stories about absent or vindictive thesis advisors, and “you won’t believe this” stories from the classes that we were teaching that brought us together.

In any group, you can tell when symbolic convergence is occurring by observing how people share such fantasies and how group members react to them. If group members react positively and agree with or appreciate the teller’s effort or other group members are triggered to tell their own related stories, then convergence is happening and cohesion and climate are being established. Over time, these fantasies build a shared vision of the group and what it means to be a member that creates a shared group consciousness. By reviewing and applying the concepts in this section, you can hopefully identify potential difficulties with group cohesion and work to enhance cohesion when needed in order to create more positive group climates and enhance your future group interactions.

“Getting Real”

Working in Teams

Although most college students hate working in groups, in the “real world” working in teams has become a regular part of professional expectations. Following Japan’s lead, corporations in the United States began adopting a more team-based approach for project management decades ago (Jain et al., 2008). This model has become increasingly popular in various organizational settings since then as means to increase productivity and reduce bureaucracy. Teams in the workplace have horizontally expanded the traditional vertical hierarchy of organizations, as the aim of creating these teams was to produce smaller units within an organization that are small enough to be efficient and self-manageable but large enough to create the synergy that we discussed in the earlier part of the chapter.

Aside from efficiency, teams are also valued for the potential for innovation. The strategic pooling of people with diverse knowledge, experience, and skills can lead to synergistic collaborative thinking that produces new knowledge (du Chatenier et al., 2010). This potential for innovation makes teams ideal in high-stakes situations where money, contracts, or lives are at stake. Large corporations are now putting together what has been termed interorganizational high-performance research and development teams consisting of highly trained technical and scientific experts from diverse backgrounds to work collectively and simultaneously on complex projects under very challenging conditions (Daniel & Davis, 2009). In markets where companies race to find the next generation of technological improvement, such research and development teams are critical for an organization’s success. Research on such teams in real-world contexts has found that in order to be successful, high-performance teams should have a clear base such as a project mission, a leader who strategically assigns various tasks to members based on their specialized expertise, and shared leadership in which individual experts are trusted to make decisions relevant to their purview within the group. Although these high-performance teams are very task oriented, research has also found that the social element cannot be ignored, even under extreme internal and external pressures. In fact, cohesion and interdependence help create a shared reality that in turn improves productivity, because team members feel a sense of shared ownership over their charge (Solansky, 2011).

Some challenges associated with working in teams include the potential for uncertainty or conflict due to the absence of traditional hierarchy, pressures that become overwhelming, lack of shared history since such teams are usually future oriented, and high expectations without resources necessary to complete the task (du Chatenier et al., 2010). To overcome these challenges, team members can think positively but realistically about the team’s end goal, exhibit trust in the expertise of other team members, be reliable and approachable to help build a good team spirit, take initiative with actions and ideas, ask critical questions, and provide critical but constructive feedback.

Given your career goals, what sorts of teamwork do you think you might engage in?
Would you welcome the opportunity to work on a high-performance team? Why or why not?
Members of teams are often under intense pressures to produce or perform at high levels. What is the line at which the pressure becomes too much? Ethically, how far should companies push teams and how far should team members go to complete a task?

Socializing Group Members

Group socialization refers to the process of teaching and learning the norms, rules, and expectations associated with group interaction and group member behaviors. Group norms, rules, and cohesion can only be created and maintained through socialization (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). It is also through socialization that a shared identity and social reality develops among group members, but this development is dependent on several factors. For example, groups with higher levels of cohesion are more likely to have members that “buy into” rules and norms, which aids in socialization. The need for socialization also changes throughout a group’s life span. If membership in a group is stable, long-term members should not need much socialization. However, when new members join a group, existing members must take time to engage in socialization. When a totally new group is formed, socialization will be an ongoing process as group members negotiate rules and procedures, develop norms, and create a shared history over time.

The information exchanged during socialization can be broken down into two general categories: technical and social knowledge (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). Technical knowledge focuses on skills and information needed to complete a task, and social knowledge focuses on behavioral norms that guide interaction. Each type of information is usually conveyed through a combination of formal and informal means. Technical knowledge can be fairly easily passed along through orientations, trainings, manuals, and documents, because this content is often fairly straightforward. Social knowledge is more ambiguous and is usually conveyed through informal means or passively learned by new members through observation. To return to our earlier terminology, technical knowledge relates more to group rules and social knowledge relates more to group norms.

Companies and social organizations socialize new members in different ways. A new training cohort at an established company may be given technical rule-based information in the form of a manual and a history of the organization and an overview of the organizational culture to help convey social knowledge about group norms. Members of some small groups like fraternities or professional organizations have to take pledges or oaths that may convey a mixture of technical and social knowledge. Social knowledge may be conveyed in interactions that are separate from official group time. For example, literally socializing as a group is a good way to socialize group members. Many large and successful businesses encourage small groups within the company to socialize outside of work time in order to build cohesion and group solidarity.

Socialization continues after initial membership through the enforcement of rules and norms. When someone deviates from the rules and norms and is corrected, it serves as a reminder for all other members and performs a follow-up socializing function. Since rules are explicitly stated and documented, deviation from the rules can have consequences ranging from verbal warnings, to temporary or permanent separation from the group, to fines or other sanctions. And although norms are implicit, deviating from them can still have consequences. Even though someone may not actually verbally correct the deviation, the self-consciousness, embarrassment, or awkwardness that can result from such deviations is often enough to initiate corrective actions. Group norms can be so implicit that they are taken for granted and operate under group members’ awareness.

Group Pressures

There must be some kind of motivating force present within groups in order for the rules and norms to help govern and guide a group. Without such pressure, group members would have no incentive to conform to group norms or buy into the group’s identity and values. In this section, we will discuss how rules and norms gain their power through internal and external pressures and how these pressures can have positive and negative effects.

Even though group members are different, failure to conform to the group’s identity could create problems.

Airwolfhound – Odd one out – CC BY-SA 2.0.

In general, some people are more likely to accept norms and rules than others, which can influence the interaction and potential for conflict within a group. While some people may feel a need for social acceptance that leads them to accept a norm or rule with minimal conformity pressure, others may actively resist because they have a valid disagreement or because they have an aggressive or argumentative personality (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Such personality traits are examples of internal pressures that operate within the individual group member and act as a self-governing mechanism. When group members discipline themselves and monitor their own behavior, groups need not invest in as many external mechanisms to promote conformity. Deviating from the group’s rules and norms that a member internalized during socialization can lead to self-imposed feelings of guilt or shame that can then initiate corrective behaviors and discourage the member from going against the group.

Conformity pressure can also stem from external forces when the whole group stands to receive a reward or punishment based on its performance, which ties back to the small group characteristic of interdependence. Although these pressures may seem negative, they also have positive results. Groups that exert an appropriate and ethical amount of conformity pressure typically have higher levels of group cohesion, which as we learned leads to increased satisfaction with group membership, better relationships, and better task performance. Groups with a strong but healthy level of conformity also project a strong group image to those outside the group, which can raise the group’s profile or reputation (Hargie, 2011). Pressures toward conformity, of course, can go too far, as is evidenced in tragic stories of people driven to suicide because they felt they couldn’t live up to the conformity pressure of their group and people injured or killed enduring hazing rituals that take expectations for group conformity to unethical and criminal extremes.

“Getting Critical”

Hazing: Taking Conformity Pressures to the Extreme

Hazing can be defined as actions expected to be performed by aspiring or new members of a group that are irrelevant to the group’s activities or mission and are humiliating, degrading, abusive, or dangerous (Richardson, Wang, & Hall, 2012). People who have participated in hazing or have been hazed often note that hazing activities are meant to build group identification and unity. Scholars note that hazing is rationalized because of high conformity pressures and that people who were hazed internalize the group’s practices and are more likely to perpetuate hazing, creating a cycle of abuse (Campo, Poulos, & Sipple, 2005). Hazing is not new; it has been around in academic and athletic settings since ancient Greece, but it has gotten much attention lately on college campuses as the number of student deaths attributed to hazing behaviors has increased steadily over the past years. In general, it is believed that hazing incidents are underreported, because these activities are done in secret within tightly knit organizations such as fraternities, sororities, and athletic teams that have strong norms of conformity (Richardson, Wang, & Hall, 2012).

The urge to belong is powerful, but where is the line when it comes to the actions people take or what people are willing to endure in order to be accepted? Hazing is meant to have aspiring group members prove their worth or commitment to the group. Examples of hazing include, but aren’t limited to, being “kidnapped, transported, and abandoned”; drinking excessively in games or contests; sleep deprivation; engaging in or simulating sexual acts; being physically abused; being required to remain silent; wearing unusual clothes or costumes; or acting in a subservient manner to more senior group members (Campo, Poulos, & Supple, 2005; Cimino, 2011). Research has found that people in leadership roles, who are more likely to have strong group identification, are also more likely to engage in hazing activities (Campo, Poulos, & Sipple, 2005). The same research also found that group members who have supportive friends outside of the organization are more likely to remove themselves from a hazing situation, which points to the fact that people who endure hazing may be doing so out of a strong drive to find the acceptance and belonging they do not have elsewhere.

What is your definition of hazing? When does something cross the line from a rite of passage or tradition to hazing?
What are some internal and external pressures that might lead to hazing activities?
Do some research on hazing incidents on college campuses. What concepts from this chapter do you think could be used in antihazing education campaigns to prevent incidents like the ones you researched?

Groupthink is a negative group phenomenon characterized by a lack of critical evaluation of proposed ideas or courses of action that results from high levels of cohesion and/or high conformity pressures (Janis, 1972). We can better understand groupthink by examining its causes and effects. When group members fall victim to groupthink, the effect is uncritical acceptance of decisions or suggestions for plans of action to accomplish a task or goal. Group meetings that appear to go smoothly with only positive interaction among happy, friendly people may seem ideal, but these actions may be symptomatic of groupthink (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). When people rush to agreement or fear argument, groupthink has a tendency to emerge. Decisions made as a result of groupthink may range from a poorly-thought-out presentation method that bores the audience to a mechanical failure resulting in death.

To Avoid Groupthink, Groups Should (Hargie, 2011)

Divvy up responsibilities between group members so decision-making power isn’t in the hands of a few
Track contributions of group members in such a way that each person’s input and output is recorded so that it can be discussed
Encourage and reward the expression of minority or dissenting opinions
Allow members to submit ideas prior to a discussion so that opinions aren’t swayed by members who propose ideas early in a discussion
Question each major decision regarding its weaknesses and potential negative consequences relative to competing decisions (encourage members to play “devil’s advocate”)
Have decisions reviewed by an outside party that wasn’t involved in the decision-making process
Have a “reflection period” after a decision is made and before it is implemented during which group members can express reservations or second thoughts about the decision

Group Conflict

Procedural Conflict

Procedural conflict emerges from disagreements or trouble with the mechanics of group operations. In this type of conflict, group members differ in their beliefs about how something should be done. Procedural conflict can be handled by a group leader, especially if the leader put group procedures into place or has the individual power to change them. If there is no designated leader or the leader doesn’t have sole power to change procedures (or just wants input from group members), proposals can be taken from the group on ways to address a procedural conflict to initiate a procedural change. A vote to reach a consensus or majority can also help resolve procedural conflict.

Procedural conflict can often be resolved with a group vote.

Pixabay – CC0 Public Domain.

Substantive Conflict

Substantive conflict focuses on group members’ differing beliefs, attitudes, values, or ideas related to the purpose or task of the group. Rather than focusing on questions of how , substantive conflicts focus on questions of what . Substantive conflicts may emerge as a group tries to determine its purpose or mission. As members figure out how to complete a task or debate which project to start on next, there will undoubtedly be differences of opinion on what something means, what is acceptable in terms of supporting evidence for a proposal, or what is acceptable for a goal or performance standard. Leaders and other group members shouldn’t rush to close this type of conflict down. As we learned in our earlier discussion of groupthink, open discussion and debate regarding ideas and suggestions for group action can lead to higher-quality output and may prevent groupthink. Leaders who make final decisions about substantive conflict for the sake of moving on run the risk of creating a win/lose competitive climate in which people feel like their ideas may be shot down, which could lead to less participation. To resolve this type of conflict, group members may want to do research to see what other groups have done in similar situations, as additional information often provides needed context for conflict regarding information and ideas. Once the information is gathered, weigh all proposals and try to discover common ground among perspectives. Civil and open discussions that debate the merits of an idea are more desirable than a climate in which people feel personally judged for their ideas.

Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict emerges from conflict between individual members of the group. Whereas procedural conflict deals with how and substantive conflict deals with what , interpersonal conflict deals with who . Such conflict can be completely irrelevant to the functioning or purpose of the group, perhaps focusing instead on personality differences. Interpersonal conflict can be the result of avoided or improperly handled procedural or substantive conflict that festers and becomes personal rather than task focused. This type of conflict can also result from differences in beliefs, attitudes, and values (when such differences are taken personally rather than substantively); different personalities; or different communication styles. While procedural and substantive conflict may be more easily expressed because they do not directly address a person, interpersonal conflict may slowly build as people avoid openly criticizing or confronting others. Passive-aggressive behavior is a sign that interpersonal conflict may be building under the surface, and other group members may want to intervene to avoid escalation and retaliation. Leaders can also meet with people involved in interpersonal conflict privately to help them engage in perception checking and act as mediators, if needed. While people who initiate procedural or substantive conflict may be perceived by other group members as concerned about the group’s welfare and seen as competent in their ability to notice areas on which the group could improve, people who initiate interpersonal conflict are often held in ill-regard by other group members (Ellis & Fisher, 1994).

Primary and Secondary Tensions

Relevant to these types of conflict are primary and secondary tensions that emerge in every group (Bormann & Borman, 1988). When the group first comes together, members experience primary tension , which is tension based on uncertainty that is a natural part of initial interactions. It is only after group members begin to “break the ice” and get to know each other that the tension can be addressed and group members can proceed with the forming stage of group development. Small talk and politeness help group members manage primary tensions, and there is a relatively high threshold for these conflicts because we have all had experiences with such uncertainty when meeting people for the first time and many of us are optimistic that a little time and effort will allow us to get through the tensions. Since some people are more comfortable initiating conversation than others, it’s important for more extroverted group members to include less talkative members. Intentionally or unintentionally excluding people during the negotiation of primary tensions can lead to unexpected secondary tensions later on. During this stage people are also less direct in their communication, using more hedges and vague language than they will later in the group process. The indirect communication and small talk that characterize this part of group development aren’t a waste of time, as they help manage primary tensions and lay the foundation for future interactions that may involve more substantive conflict.

Secondary tension emerges after groups have passed the forming stage of group development and begin to have conflict over member roles, differing ideas, and personality conflicts. These tensions are typically evidenced by less reserved and less polite behavior than primary tensions. People also have a lower tolerance threshold for secondary tensions, because rather than being an expected part of initial interaction, these conflicts can be more negative and interfere with the group’s task performance. Secondary tensions are inevitable and shouldn’t be feared or eliminated. It’s not the presence or absence of secondary tension that makes a group successful or not; it’s how it handles the tensions when they emerge. A certain level of secondary tension is tolerable, not distracting, and can actually enhance group performance and avoid groupthink. When secondary tensions rise above the tolerance threshold and become distracting, they should be released through direct means such as diplomatic confrontation or indirect means such as appropriate humor or taking a break. While primary tensions eventually disappear (at least until a new member arrives), secondary tensions will come and go and may persist for longer periods of time. For that reason, we will now turn to a discussion of how to manage conflict in group interaction.

Managing Conflict in Small Groups

Some common ways to manage conflict include clear decision-making procedures, third-party mediation, and leader facilitation (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Decision making is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14 “Leadership, Roles, and Problem Solving in Groups” , but commonly used methods such as majority vote can help or hurt conflict management efforts. While an up-and-down vote can allow a group to finalize a decision and move on, members whose vote fell on the minority side may feel resentment toward other group members. This can create a win/lose climate that leads to further conflict. Having a leader who makes ultimate decisions can also help move a group toward completion of a task, but conflict may only be pushed to the side and left not fully addressed. Third-party mediation can help move a group past a conflict and may create less feelings of animosity, since the person mediating and perhaps making a decision isn’t a member of the group. In some cases, the leader can act as an internal third-party mediator to help other group members work productively through their conflict.

Tips for Managing Group Conflict (Ellis & Fisher, 1994)

Clarify the issue at hand by getting to the historical roots of the problem. Keep in mind that perception leads us to punctuate interactions differently, so it may be useful to know each person’s perspective of when, how, and why the conflict began.
Create a positive discussion climate by encouraging and rewarding active listening.
Discuss needs rather than solutions. Determine each person’s needs to be met and goals for the outcome of the conflict before offering or acting on potential solutions.
Set boundaries for discussion and engage in gatekeeping to prevent unproductive interactions like tangents and personal attacks.
Use “we” language to maintain existing group cohesion and identity, and use “I” language to help reduce defensiveness.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Conflict

Remember that a complete lack of conflict in a group is a bad sign, as it indicates either a lack of activity or a lack of commitment on the part of the members (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Conflict, when properly handled, can lead a group to have a better understanding of the issues they face. For example, substantive conflict brings voice to alternative perspectives that may not have been heard otherwise. Additionally, when people view conflict as healthy, necessary, and productive, they can enter into a conflict episode with an open mind and an aim to learn something. This is especially true when those who initiate substantive conflict are able to share and defend their views in a competent and civil manner. Group cohesion can also increase as a result of well-managed conflict. Occasional experiences of tension and unrest followed by resolutions makes groups feel like they have accomplished something, which can lead them to not dread conflict and give them the confidence to more productively deal with it the next time.

Key Takeaways

Task cohesion refers to the degree of commitment of group members to the purpose and activities of the group, and social cohesion refers to the degree of attraction and liking among group members. Group climate refers to the relatively enduring tone and quality of group interaction that is experienced similarly by group members. The degree of each type of cohesion affects the group’s climate. Groups can be very close socially but not perform well if they do not have an appropriate level of task cohesion. Groups that are too focused on the task can experience interpersonal conflict or a lack of motivation if the social cohesion, which helps enhance the feeling of interdependence, is lacking.
Group socialization refers to the process of teaching and learning the norms, rules, and expectations associated with group interaction and group member behaviors. Group members are socialized by receiving technical and social information. Cohesion plays a role in socialization, as groups that have high levels of task and social cohesion are more likely to buy into the norms of the group. Socialization continues after a member has joined, as members are officially or unofficially rewarded or punished for adhering to or deviating from the group’s norms.
Conformity pressures are an important force behind group socialization. Internal pressures such as an internal drive to be seen as part of the group or to avoid feeling ashamed or guilty for deviating from the group influence behavior and communication. Likewise, external pressures such as group policies and the potential for reward or punishment also play into group dynamics. The pressures toward conformity can manifest in groupthink , which is characterized by a lack of critical evaluation of proposed ideas, a high level of agreement, and a fear of argument.

Groups experience different kinds of conflict, including procedural, substantive, and interpersonal conflict.

Procedural conflict emerges from disagreements or trouble with the mechanics of group operations and deal with questions about “how” a group should do something. A leader may be able to resolve this conflict by changing or explaining a procedure or taking, from group members, proposals for or votes on procedural revisions.
Substantive conflict focuses on group members’ differing beliefs, attitudes, values, or ideas related to the purpose or task of the group. Leaders and other group members should avoid closing off this type of conflict before people have had a chance to be heard, as a lack of substantive conflict can lead to groupthink. Instead, listen to all viewpoints, try to find common ground, and then weigh and evaluate the information as a group.
Interpersonal conflict emerges from personal conflict between individual members of a group. Manage interpersonal conflict by getting to the root cause of the conflict. In some cases, interpersonal conflict may be disguised as procedural or substantive conflict, or it may develop as a result of poorly managed procedural or substantive conflict. Leaders, group members not directly involved in the conflict, or even outside third parties may also be able to effectively mediate interpersonal conflict.
Group cohesion and climate are important dynamics within a small group. Identify and then compare and contrast a current or former small group that was cohesive and one that was not cohesive, including a discussion of how the presence or lack of cohesion affected the group’s climate.

Groupthink is a negative group dynamic that relates to cohesion and conformity pressures. Several historic events with far-reaching and devastating implications have been analyzed through the lens of groupthink. Choose one of the following examples, and do some Internet research on your own. Then explain how groupthink played a role in the event.

The Watergate scandal and cover-up (1972–74)
The space shuttle Challenger explosion (1986)
The rationale for the invasion of Iraq—specifically the supposed existence of weapons of mass destruction (2001–2)
Getting integrated: How might you handle group conflict differently in an academic context versus a professional context? Why? Include a reference to a specific type of conflict discussed in this section and discuss which conflict management strategies discussed in the chapter might be best in each context.

Ahuja, M. K. and John E. Galvin, “Socialization in Virtual Groups,” Journal of Management 29, no. 2 (2003): 163.

Bormann, E. G. “Symbolic Convergence Theory: A Communication Formulation,” Journal of Communication , 35, no. 4 (1985): 128–38.

Bormann, E. G., and Nancy C. Borman, Effective Small Group Communication , 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess Publishing, 1988), 72.

Campo, S., Gretchen Poulos, and John W. Sipple, “Prevalence and Profiling: Hazing among College Students and Points of Intervention,” American Journal of Health Behavior 29, no. 2 (2005): 138.

Cimino, A., “The Evolution of Hazing: Motivational Mechanisms and the Abuse of Newcomers,” Journal of Cognition and Culture 11, no. 3–4 (2011): 235.

Daniel, L. J., and Charles R. Davis, “What Makes High-Performance Teams Excel?” Research Technology Management 52, no. 4 (2009): 40–41.

du Chatenier, E., Jos A. A. M. Verstegen, Harm J. A. Biemans, Martin Mulder, and Onno S. W. F. Omta, “Identification of Competencies in Open Innovation Teams,” Research and Development Management 40, no. 3 (2010): 271.

Ellis, D. G., and B. Aubrey Fisher, Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process , 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 133.

Fujishin, R., Creating Effective Groups: The Art of Small Group Communication (San Francisco, CA: Acada Books, 2001): 160–61.

Griffin, E., A First Look at Communication Theory , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 28.

Hargie, O., Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice , 5th ed. (London: Routledge, 2011), 445.

Jain, A. K., Jon M. Thompson, Joseph Chaudry, Shaun McKenzie, and Richard W. Schwartz, “High-Performance Teams for Current and Future Physician Leaders: An Introduction,” Journal of Surgical Education 65 (2008): 145.

Janis, I. L., Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascos (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972).

Marston, P. J. and Michael L. Hecht, “Group Satisfaction,” in Small Group Communication , 5th ed., eds. Robert Cathcart and Larry Samovar (Dubuque, IA: Brown, 1988), 236–46.

Richardson, B. K., Zuoming Wang, and Camille A. Hall, “Blowing the Whistle against Greek Hazing: The Theory of Reasoned Action as a Framework for Reporting Intentions,” Communication Studies 63, no. 2 (2012): 173.

Solansky, S. T., “Team Identification: A Determining Factor of Performance,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 26, no. 3 (2011): 250.

Small Business Productivity, Tools and Tips – Android and iPhone Sync

Unveiling the truth: the surprising reality of success among it professionals.

In today’s digital age, IT professionals’ role has become increasingly crucial in driving innovation, powering businesses, and shaping the future of technology. However, there’s a common misconception that all IT professionals are inherently successful in their careers. In reality, the journey to success in the IT field is often filled with challenges, setbacks, and unexpected twists. In this article, we’ll unveil the truth behind the perceived success of IT professionals and explore the surprising realities that shape their career paths.

The Myth of Universal Success

Before we delve into the realities of success among IT professionals, let’s address the myth of universal success that often surrounds the IT industry. It’s easy to assume that everyone working in IT enjoys lucrative salaries, prestigious positions, and fulfilling careers. However, the truth is far more nuanced.

Diverse Career Paths

IT encompasses a wide range of roles and specialties, from software development and cybersecurity to network administration and IT support. Not all IT professionals follow the same career path or achieve the same level of success.

Varied Definitions of Success

Success means different things to different people. While some IT professionals may measure success by their salary, job title, or professional achievements, others may prioritize work-life balance, job satisfaction, or personal fulfillment.

Hidden Challenges

Behind the facade of success, many IT professionals face hidden challenges such as job insecurity, burnout, imposter syndrome, and discrimination. These challenges can impact their overall well-being and professional satisfaction.

The Surprising Realities of Success in IT

Now, let’s uncover the surprising realities that shape the success of IT professionals:

Continuous Learning and Adaptation

In the rapidly evolving landscape of technology, staying relevant requires continuous learning and adaptation. Successful IT professionals are committed to lifelong learning, keeping pace with emerging trends, and acquiring new skills to stay ahead of the curve.

Problem-Solving and Resilience:

IT professionals encounter complex challenges and obstacles on a daily basis. Success in IT often hinges on problem-solving skills, resilience, and the ability to overcome adversity. The most successful IT professionals embrace challenges as opportunities for growth and innovation.

Networking and Relationship Building:

Building a strong professional network is essential for success in any field, including IT. Successful IT professionals cultivate relationships with colleagues, mentors, and industry peers, leveraging their networks for career opportunities, knowledge sharing, and support.

Soft Skills Matter:

While technical skills are important in IT, soft skills such as communication, teamwork, and leadership are equally crucial for success. Successful IT professionals excel not only in technical proficiency but also in interpersonal skills, empathy, and emotional intelligence.

Career Growth and Advancement:

Advancing in the IT field requires strategic career planning, goal setting, and continuous self-improvement. Successful IT professionals proactively seek out opportunities for career growth, whether through promotions, certifications, or lateral moves.

While hard work and perseverance are undoubtedly essential for success, it’s also important to acknowledge the role of luck and timing. Serendipitous opportunities, chance encounters, and being in the right place at the right time can all play a significant role in shaping an individual’s career trajectory. However, luck alone is not enough; it must be coupled with preparation, skill, and the ability to seize opportunities when they arise.

Overcoming Challenges and Roadblocks

Despite the many rewards of a career in IT, success is not guaranteed, and IT professionals often encounter challenges and roadblocks along the way. Some common challenges include:

Job Insecurity: The IT industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid changes, leading to job insecurity for many IT professionals.

Work-Life Balance: Long hours, tight deadlines, and demanding workloads can take a toll on IT professionals’ work-life balance, leading to burnout and stress.

Skills Obsolescence: Technology evolves at a rapid pace, and IT professionals must continuously update their skills to remain relevant in the field.

Gender and Diversity Issues: The IT industry has historically struggled with gender and diversity issues, leading to disparities in opportunities and representation among IT professionals.

Behind every success story in the IT industry lies a unique journey filled with triumphs, challenges, and hard-earned lessons. While some IT professionals may achieve rapid success and acclaim, others may face setbacks and obstacles along the way. The key is not to measure success by external benchmarks or comparisons to others but to define it on your own terms and strive for continuous improvement and growth.

Strategies for Success in IT

While success in the IT field may not come easily, there are strategies that IT professionals can employ to increase their chances of success:

Invest in Continuous Learning: Stay abreast of the latest technologies, trends, and best practices through formal education, training courses, and self-directed learning.

Build a Strong Network: Cultivate relationships with colleagues, mentors, and industry peers to expand your professional network and access new opportunities.

Develop Soft Skills: Hone your communication, teamwork, and leadership skills to complement your technical expertise and enhance your effectiveness as an IT professional.

Set Clear Goals: Define your career goals and objectives, and develop a roadmap for achieving them through strategic planning and consistent effort.

Seek Support: Don’t be afraid to seek support from mentors, colleagues, or professional organizations when facing challenges or seeking guidance in your career.

Conclusion: Redefining Success in IT

Unveiling the truth about success among IT professionals reveals a nuanced reality that extends beyond technical expertise alone. While proficiency in IT skills is undoubtedly essential, achieving success in the industry often involves a combination of factors, with IT certifications playing a significant role.

These certifications serve as tangible validations of an individual’s skills and knowledge in specific IT domains, enhancing their credibility and marketability to potential employers. Moreover, ITIL cert paves the way for career advancement opportunities, increased earning potential, and continuous professional development.

However, the surprising reality is that success in the IT industry is not solely determined by certifications; it also requires a commitment to ongoing learning, adaptability to emerging technologies, and strong soft skills such as communication and problem-solving. Therefore, while IT certifications can certainly open doors to success, true achievement in the field ultimately depends on a holistic approach that combines technical proficiency with a growth mindset and a passion for innovation.

Overthought This

8 Clever Facts About Crows and Ravens, What’s the Difference?

Posted: April 11, 2024 | Last updated: April 11, 2024

<p><span>Prepare to be amazed by the cognitive abilities of crows and ravens. These birds are no feather-brains! Studies have shown that they possess remarkable problem-solving skills. </span></p><p><span>Research by </span><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326277/"><span>Emery and Clayton</span></a><span> showed that scrub jays (</span><i><span>Aphelocoma coerulescens</span></i><span>), another member of the corvid family, will pilfer another jay’s food caches and move their own caches to a new location, but only when they had been observed storing their food by another jay.</span></p>

If you’ve ever found yourself marveling at the mysterious world of crows and ravens, you’re in for a treat. As a wildlife biologist, I have spent countless hours observing these remarkable corvids.

I’m excited to share with you eight clever facts that will deepen your appreciation for these intelligent and intriguing birds.

<p><span>If you’ve ever found yourself marveling at the mysterious world of crows and ravens, you’re in for a treat. As a wildlife biologist, I have spent countless hours observing these remarkable corvids. I’m excited to share with you eight clever facts that will deepen your appreciation for these intelligent and intriguing birds.</span></p>

The Corvid Family

The corvid family is a fascinating group that includes crows, ravens, and magpies, each with its own unique characteristics.

Fun Fact: “A murder of crows” is the actual definition of a flock of crows, and “an unkindness of ravens” is the accepted vernacular for describing a flock of ravens.

<p><span>Ever wondered how to tell crows and ravens apart? Well, it turns out there are some subtle but distinctive features. </span></p><p><span>Crows are generally smaller, with a fan-shaped tail and a more compact silhouette. Ravens, on the flip side, boast larger bills, wedge-shaped tails, and a grander wingspan. It’s like nature’s own game of spot-the-difference! </span></p><p><span>One day, while observing a murder of crows in my backyard, I couldn’t help but admire their sleek black feathers and the subtle gleam in their eyes. It’s amazing how their physical traits contribute to their overall charm.</span></p>

Spotting the Differences

Ever wondered how to tell crows and ravens apart? There are some subtle but distinctive features to look for.

Crows are generally smaller, with a fan-shaped tail and a more compact silhouette.
Ravens, on the flip side, have larger bills, wedge-shaped tails, and a grander wingspan.
Crows often move in groups – for instance, a murder of crows expertly navigating the urban landscape.
Ravens, on the other hand, often grace the skies alone or in pairs.

<p><span>The corvid family is a fascinating group that includes crows, ravens, and magpies, each with its own unique characteristics. </span></p><p><span>Picture this: a murder of crows expertly navigating the urban landscape, showcasing their adaptability and intelligence. Ravens, on the other hand, often grace the skies alone or in pairs with their majestic presence, leaving an indelible mark on anyone fortunate enough to witness their flight.</span></p><p><b>Fun Fact:</b><span> “A murder of crows” is the actual definition of a flock of crows, and “an unkindness of ravens” is the accepted vernacular for describing a flock of ravens.</span></p>

Problem-Solving Wonders

These birds are no feather-brains! Studies have shown that they possess remarkable problem-solving skills.

Research by Emery and Clayton showed that scrub jays ( Aphelocoma coerulescens ), another member of the corvid family, will pilfer another jay’s food caches and move their own caches to a new location, but only when they had been observed storing their food by another jay.

Tool Use in the Wild

Speaking of problem-solving, both crows and ravens exhibit tool use in the wild. From crafting hooks out of twigs to using cars to crack open tough nuts, these birds are the MacGyvers of the avian world.

A study in Hawaii on the Hawaiian crow, Corvus hawaiiensis, presented the birds with sticks and naturalistic extraction tasks and found that they are indeed very dexterous tool users: 93% of all adults and 47% of the younger birds spontaneously used sticks to probe for hidden food. ( Science.org )

<p><span>Crows and ravens are not just solitary creatures; they thrive in social communities. Crows often form tight-knit family groups, and ravens engage in playful antics with their fellow companions. It’s heartwarming to witness the camaraderie among these birds. Once, I observed an unkindness of ravens working together to drive away a larger predator from their nesting area. Teamwork truly makes the dream work in the corvid world!</span></p>

Social Behavior

Crows and ravens are thrive in social communities. Crows often form tight-knit family groups, and ravens engage in playful antics with their fellow companions.

It’s heartwarming to witness the camaraderie among these birds. Once, I observed an unkindness of ravens working together to drive away a larger predator from their nesting area. Teamwork truly makes the dream work in the corvid world!

<p><span>The vocalizations of crows and ravens add another layer of fascination. Crows are known for their varied caws and calls, while ravens produce deep, resonant croaks. It’s like they have their own language, complete with regional dialects and nuanced expressions.</span></p>

Communication

The vocalizations of crows and ravens add another layer of fascination. Crows are known for their varied caws and calls, while ravens produce deep, resonant croaks.

<p><span>Crows and ravens have woven themselves into the tapestry of human culture. From Native American myths to Edgar Allan Poe’s iconic poem, “The Raven,” these birds have symbolized everything from wisdom and trickery to mystery. </span></p><p><span>As a child, I was captivated by stories of ravens as messengers in Norse mythology. Little did I know that my fascination would turn into a lifelong passion for studying these incredible birds.</span></p>

Myths, Folklore, and Literature

Crows and ravens have woven themselves into the tapestry of human culture. From Native American myths to Edgar Allan Poe’s iconic poem, “The Raven,” these birds have symbolized everything from wisdom and trickery to mystery.

As a child, I was captivated by stories of ravens as messengers in Norse mythology. Little did I know that my fascination would turn into a lifelong passion for studying these incredible birds.

Conservation Challenges

Despite their remarkable adaptability, crows and ravens face conservation challenges. When humans became largely agrarian, crows became our competitors—stealing food and raiding crops—and had to be scared off by “scarecrows.” ( NCBI )

A complicated relationship began with corvids, leaving opinions extremely polarized. Loss of habitat and climate change have had serious deleterious effects on a large number and variety of birds over the past few decades; over 50 species have shown a 45% or more loss in their populations, and there has been a 30% decline in the number of birds overall in the last 30 years. ( Ornithology.com )

<p><span>So there you have it – 8 clever facts about crows and ravens that showcase the incredible world of corvids. From their diverse physical features to their problem-solving prowess, these birds never cease to amaze. As you venture into the world of avian fascination, remember to look up and appreciate the clever corvids gracing the skies above. Happy birdwatching!</span></p>

A Flight of Fascinating Facts

So there you have it – 8 clever facts about crows and ravens that showcase the incredible world of corvids. From their diverse physical features to their problem-solving prowess, these birds never cease to amaze. As you venture into the world of avian fascination, remember to look up and appreciate the clever corvids gracing the skies above. Happy birdwatching!

<ul> <li><a href="https://overthoughtthis.com/fabulous-bird-facts/">14 Fabulous Facts About Our Feathery Friends</a></li> </ul><p><strong>Read More:</strong></p><ul> <li><a href="https://overthoughtthis.com/beyond-the-fluff-10-unexpected-facts-about-the-red-panda/">Not Just Fluff: Fascinating Facts About Red Pandas</a></li> <li><a href="https://overthoughtthis.com/ignobel-prize-winners/">Ig Nobel Prize Winners: Seriously Goofy Science</a></li> </ul>

14 Fabulous Bird Facts

We’ve gathered 14 feathery facts about birds to stow in your trivia nest!

More for You

TikTok star Kyle Marisa Roth dies at 36

Jean-Pierre on Arizona's Abortion Ban: 'More Extreme and Dangerous'

White House Response To Soaring Gas Prices Sparks Backlash

Patrick Mahomes walks the parade route as fans go wild during the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl LVIII Victory Parade on Feb 14, 2024 in Kansas City, MO.

Patrick Mahomes explains why he avoided calling for tight gun-control laws after shooting, endorsing president

The Food City Anthony Bourdain Considered One Of His All-Time Favorites

The passport rule that prevented Vicky Pattison from boarding her flight – and how to avoid the same mistake

4-Year-Old Living With One of the Rarest Disorders in the World

Another popular beer, brewery brand files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Where is Jennifer Pan from ‘What Jennifer Did’ now?

These Are 10 Smells That Cats Absolutely Hate

Scott Peterson addresses the appeals court over Zoom

Scott Peterson defense drops motion to seal in bid for new trial after prosecutors note files mostly public

Frozen hamburger patties in stack on wooden board

Is It Safe To Grill Frozen Hamburger Patties Straight From The Freezer?

How to digitize VHS tapes the cheap way

AI-Generated Contestants Will Compete for the Title of ‘Miss AI’ in World’s First AI Beauty Pageant

51 Mind-Blowingly Cool Things From Other Countries That The US Needs To Adopt STAT

Clarence Thomas Calls Veteran's Argument 'Especially Unconvincing'

Cellphone nightmare leads to ported numbers, identity theft and fight for recovery

U.S. sprinter Gabby Thomas says she prefers “wearing as little clothes as possible” when she competes, so she's grateful to have options at the Olympics.

U.S. women’s track Olympians say photo was shocking but uniform isn’t

US Navy warships shot down Iranian missiles with a weapon they've never used in combat before

US man who deflected hockey puck flying directly at boy, 4, hailed as hero

Pedestrians pass in front of a Red Lobster restaurant in New York, U.S., on Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2012.

Red Lobster considering bankruptcy filing: report

IMAGES

Communication Skills in Problems & Problem Solving Skills
10 Problem-Solving Strategies to Turn Challenges into Opportunities
Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups
Communication & Problem Solving
Communication Strategies and Problem Solving
Communication Problem Solving

VIDEO

Small group communication project
Small Group Communication
Problem Solving Flood In Kelantan
How to Solve Every Major Business Problem with Chat GPT
Small Group Communication Welcome Video
9/8/2023 Small Group Communication: Presentation: "Group Campfire"

COMMENTS

Engaging in Group Problem-Solving
Step 2: Analyze the Problem. During this step, a group should analyze the problem and the group's relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the "what" related to the problem, this step focuses on the "why.". At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty.
14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups
Step 2: Analyze the Problem. During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group's relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the "what" related to the problem, this step focuses on the "why.". At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty.
13.1 Understanding Small Groups
Task-oriented groups require honed problem-solving skills to accomplish goals, and the structure of these groups is more rigid than that of relational-oriented groups. ... Getting integrated: Small group communication refers to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared ...
Group Problem Solving
A problem-solving group has been formed, and they start by formulating a working definition of the problem. Example problems: Too broad: "Sales are off, our numbers are down, and we need more customers.". More precise: "Sales have been slipping incrementally for six of the past nine months and are significantly lower than a seasonally ...
Groups and Problem-Solving
Learning Objective. Identify and describe how to implement seven steps for group problem-solving. No matter who you are or where you live, problems are an inevitable part of life. This is true for groups as well as for individuals. Some groups—especially work teams—are formed specifically to solve problems. Other groups encounter problems ...
13.1 Understanding Small Groups
Define small group communication. ... Groups faced with problem-solving tasks have to devise a course of action to meet a specific need. These groups also usually include a production and discussion component, but the end goal isn't necessarily a tangible product or a shared social reality through discussion. Instead, the end goal is a well ...
Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams
About the Book. Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams is an interdisciplinary textbook focused on communication in groups and teams. This textbook aims to provide students with theories, concepts, and skills they can put into practice to form and sustain successful groups across a variety of contexts.
Small Group Communication
12 Small Group Communication. 12. Small Group Communication. Introduction. When you think of small groups, you probably think of the much dreaded "group assignment" that you have endured in high school and college. You are less likely to think of the numerous other groups to which you belong that bring more positive experiences, such as ...
Understanding and Applying Fisher's Model for Small Group Communication
Defining Small Group Communication. Small group communication plays a critical role in both personal and professional contexts, and its importance can't be overstated. Here's why: Problem Solving and Decision Making: Small groups often come together to make decisions or solve problems. They bring together diverse perspectives, knowledge ...
8.5: Problem Solving and Decision-Making in Groups
Step 2: Analyze the Problem. During this step, a group should analyze the problem and the group's relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the "what" related to the problem, this step focuses on the "why.". At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty.
9.1: Leadership and Small Group Communication
The leader is a group role that is associated with a high-status position and may be formally or informally recognized by group members. Leadership is a complex of beliefs, communication patterns, and behaviors that influence the functioning of a group and move a group toward the completion of its task. A person in the role of leader may ...
Communication Styles and Problem Solving: An Introductory Small Group
Frustrated with existing approaches to teaching introductory small group communication, an instructor developed a systematic approach called Group Problem Solving through Communication Styles. Assumptions underlying the course are that the small group communication class is a general education course (it may be the only communication class taken by undergraduate students); and whatever college ...
8.1: Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups
Step 2: Analyze the Problem. During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group's relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the "what" related to the problem, this step focuses on the "why.". At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty.
14 Brain-Boosting Problem Solving Group Activities For Teams
Why this is an effective problem solving group activity: Virtual Code Break can be played by groups as small as 4 people all the way up to more than 1,000 people at once. However, every team will improve their communication and problem-solving skills as they race against the clock and depend on each other's strengths to win!
Creative problem solving and communication behavior in small groups
Groups were also evaluated on the quantity of ideas generated. Results indicated that groups trained in creative problem solving participated more, criticized ideas less, supported ideas more, exhibited more verbal and nonverbal indications of humor, and produced significantly more ideas than untrained groups.
14.1 Leadership and Small Group Communication
The leader is a group role that is associated with a high-status position and may be formally or informally recognized by group members. Leadership is a complex of beliefs, communication patterns, and behaviors that influence the functioning of a group and move a group toward the completion of its task. A person in the role of leader may ...
15 Team Building Games For Small Groups That Don't Suck
Problem-solving: Many team building games require problem-solving, which is a crucial skill in the workplace. ... Team building games are essential for the development of small groups, as they promote communication, trust and team spirit. The best games for small groups are those that are fun and at the same time improve important work skills.
13.3 Small Group Dynamics
Group cohesion and climate is also demonstrated through symbolic convergence (Bormann, 1985). Symbolic convergence refers to the sense of community or group consciousness that develops in a group through non-task-related communication such as stories and jokes. The originator of symbolic convergence theory, Ernest Bormann, claims that the sharing of group fantasies creates symbolic convergence.
Unveiling the Truth: The Surprising Reality of Success Among IT
Problem-Solving and Resilience: IT professionals encounter complex challenges and obstacles on a daily basis. Success in IT often hinges on problem-solving skills, resilience, and the ability to overcome adversity. The most successful IT professionals embrace challenges as opportunities for growth and innovation. Networking and Relationship ...
8 Clever Facts About Crows and Ravens, What's the Difference?
Speaking of problem-solving, both crows and ravens exhibit tool use in the wild. From crafting hooks out of twigs to using cars to crack open tough nuts, these birds are the MacGyvers of the avian ...

11 Engaging in Group Problem-Solving

Group Problem Solving

Group Problem-Solving Process

Step 1: Define the Problem

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Six Thinking Hats Method

Authors & Attribution

Share This Book

38 Group Problem Solving

Define the Problem

Analyze the Problem

Establish Criteria

Consider Possible Solutions to the Problem

Decide on a Solution

Implement the Solution

Follow Up on the Solution

Small Group Problem Solving Examples

Tiny Houses

New York City Trash

The Crisis of Leadership

Share This Book

11.1 Group Problem-Solving

Define the Problem

Analyze the Problem

Establish Criteria

Consider Possible Solutions to the Problem

Decide on a Solution

Implement the Solution

Follow up on the Solution

Key Takeaway

11.2 Group Decision-Making

Methods of Reaching Decisions

Guidelines for Seeking Consensus

Decision-Making by Leaders

The Tannnenbaum-Schmidt Continuum

Key Takeaways

11.3 Effective Strategies for Group Creativity

A Theory of Creativity

Overcoming Inertia

Brainstorming

The Ostrich and the Sea Urchin

Threats to the Effectiveness of Brainstorming

11.4 Facilitating the Task-Oriented Group

Coliberation

11.5 Summary

Review Questions

Additional Resources

Share This Book

13.1 Understanding Small Groups

Characteristics of Small Groups

Size of Small Groups

Structure of Small Groups

Interdependence

Shared Identity

Types of Small Groups

Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups

Key Takeaways

Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

12 Small Group Communication

12.1 Understanding Small Groups

Interdependence

Shared Identity

Groups Meet Instrumental Needs

Groups Meet Interpersonal Needs

Groups Meet Identity Needs

12.2 Types of Small Groups

Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups

12.3 Small Group Development

12.4 Small Group Dynamics

Group Cohesion and Climate

Socializing Group Members

Group Pressures