Group Communication

I. Revising the theory

Exercise 1. What are the purposes of verbal communication? Add to the list below.

  • Group;
  • role;
  • leader;
  • group climate;

Exercise 2. Name the stages of the Standard Agenda model.

Problem identification, problem analysis …

Exercise 3. In the mid-1960s, Bruce Tuckman proposed a five stage model of group decision making. Tuckman believed that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, face up to challenges, tackle problems, find solutions, plan work, and deliver results. Match the phases with their descriptions.



Coming Apart

  • Forming
  • Storming
  • Norming
  • Performing
  • Adjourning
  • Members establish spoken or unspoken rules about how they communicate and work. Status, rank and roles in the group are established
  • Members leave the group.
  • Members come together, learn about each other, and determine the purpose of the group.
  • Members fulfill their purpose and reach their goal.
  • Members engage in more direct communication and get to know each other. Conflicts between group members will often arise during this stage.

II. Practicing

Exercise 1. Comment on the following quotation.

“In the beginning, God made an individual – and then He made a pair. The pair formed a group, and together they begot others and thus the group grew. Unfortunately, working in a group led to friction, and the group disintegrated in conflict. And Cain settled in the land of Nod. There has been trouble with groups ever since” (Davis Sharp).

Exercise 2. Agree or disagree with the following statement: “A variety of factors interact to create a group feeling: How group members communicate, to whom they communicate, and how often they communicate influence their satisfaction as well as productivity”. Give your reasons.

Exercise 3. Read the text. Dwell on the three basic interpersonal needs and explain how they are connected with group communication.

Why Did You Do That?! Understanding Interpersonal Needs and Motivations

Understanding personality type helps us see how our minds are wired – how we like to get energized, take in information, make decisions, and orient ourselves to the outer world. Understanding interpersonal needs gives us insight into another aspect of our personality – what motivates our behavior in regard to how much interaction we want with others.

For example, we know that people who prefer Extraversion are energized by the outer world of people and things, but what if they have low interpersonal needs? How they express their Extraversion will “show up” differently compared to Extraverts who have high interpersonal needs. Interpersonal needs add another unique dimension to who we are and why we do the things we do.

Based on the research of Will Schutz, PhD, the FIRO-B® instrument was created to assess interpersonal needs. The theory is that beyond our physiological needs – for food and safety, for example – we each have interpersonal needs – for Inclusion, Control, and Affection – that strongly motivate us. Unlike personality type preferences, which, according to Jung, are hardwired at birth, interpersonal needs are developed throughout our lifetime, based on our experiences, culture, values, and so on. As Schutz explains, everyone has the desire to express Inclusion, Control, and Affection, as well as to receive these from others. These interpersonal needs are ranked low, medium, or high depending on the strength of the desire to get them met.

Knowing about interpersonal needs gives us a better sense of why we seek out or avoid certain situations, as well as why we seek to be “satisfied” or to have those needs met.

Inclusion, sometimes called Involvement, is about the need to belong. The desire to be recognized, to be a part of the group, is Wanted Inclusion. It could be a work group, a book club, a family circle, a sports team (or a group that watches a particular sport), a volunteer group, or even an organization. The other side of this interpersonal need is Expressed Inclusion – the drive to include others, to decide who to include. For some, Inclusion is not a strong motivating factor, while for others it is very important.

Control, sometimes called Influence, is another interpersonal need that may motivate an individual’s behavior. How important is it to you to be in charge or to not be “managed” in any way? The need to lead, influence, provide structure, make the decisions is Expressed Control. Wanted Control is about how much you want others to lead, provide structure, set the goals, etc. Is your motivation to have this interpersonal need met low, medium, or high in either dimension? Think about how often you are “driven” to take charge. If you find yourself constantly wanting to be in charge, is it because you feel others are incompetent or because you want to drive the direction? Do you feel that others in a leadership role are there to provide you with structure and direction, or that they should trust you to fulfill your role the way you want to? For some, it may be difficult to delegate effectively, or they may overvalue competence (not valuing a learning experience, but instead seeing a mistake as a disaster). For others, the strong need for independence and freedom from responsibility may limit their effectiveness in relationships.

Affection, sometimes called Connection, is about one-to-one relationships and the emotional ties and warm connections between people. Wanted Affection has to do with how much warmth and closeness you want in relationships. Think about how often you disclose your feelings to individuals and how willing you are to listen to theirs. How important is it for you to be liked by others? How many individuals are you close to, and how would you define close? Do you have a few deeper relationships or do you consider everyone you meet (get acquainted with) a friend? Expressed Affection is about how willing you are to develop a close and warm connection with another person. How often do you act in ways that encourage closeness to another? Because of differences in this interpersonal need, some people may be perceived as unapproachable, while others may be disappointed in a relationship because the other person doesn’t accept the depth and intensity that they want and need. If we are seeking to have our interpersonal needs met and our current circumstances (work or home, for example) don’t meet them, we will actively seek to get these needs met in other ways.

From: http://www.cppblogcentral.com/cpp-connect/whyd-you-do-that-understanding-
interpersonal-needs-motivations/

Exercise 4. Read the text and consider the tasks below.

What Is Leadership?

When you hear the word “leadership” what comes to mind? Is it Superman, with amazing abilities to overcome almost all obstacles combined with altruism and his concern for humanity? Is it Lara Croft, the fictional video game character who solves all her own problems and doesn’t need anyone to save her as she is no “damsel in distress?” Is it the action movie hero, alone against all odds, the rises from the ashes victorious? Is it the person who, observing that someone is choking and cannot breathes, performs the Heimlich maneuver, dislodging the obstruction and saving someone’s life? Or finally, is the person who gets up every morning, helps others at their tasks and on their way, who juggles two jobs and more responsibilities than they can count, and still remains accessible, helpful, and caring day after day? You might answer all of the above and to a certain extent you would be correct, but we need to examine these distinct expressions of leadership to learn from each one.

Superman represents the ideal hero for some, with a combination of strength and virtue. Natural born leaders have been discussed, explored, and investigated time and time again across history. It was once thought that a leader was born, not made, but the evidence indicates otherwise. What makes a leader is complicated and not easy to define. Across cultures leadership is considered many things, and requires many different, if not opposing, behaviors. There is no universal standard, trait, or quality that makes a leader, but still people sometimes look to a strong leader to solve their problems. Some cultures have embraced a single person’s leadership without checks or balances, like Stalin or Hitler, only to learn devastating lessons that cost millions of lives. There is no superman.

Therefore, what does make a leader? Is it a combination of talents (that you are born with) and skills (that you learn in life)? Ligon, Hunter, and Mumford Ligon, G.S., Hunter, S.T. Mumford explore exceptional leaders in Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. Their goal was to further understanding of how different childhood and young adult experiences may impact leadership, searching for identifiable patterns in predicting different types of leadership. Their conclusion may surprise you: what makes a leader across contexts are individuals who, in the presence of a crisis or challenge, can formulate and implement a plan of action. Leadership, therefore, is the ability to effectively formulate and implement a plan of action based on the context. The person who calls 911 when someone appears to have a heart attack has observed and assessed the situation, and creates a rational plan to address the current crisis. What might be normally considered a simple phone call, in this context, becomes of paramount importance. The ability to provide a location or street address, or describe observations, or even perform CPR while emergency services are in route are all examples of leadership in action. Even if the person doesn’t know CPR, the act of asking people in the area if anyone knows CPR and can help is matching needs to skill sets, an important aspect of leadership. Leadership can be demonstrated in your own life or can involve teams and groups.

There is no universal definition of leadership. Across cultures what we consider leadership varies greatly, and yet we know it when we see it. We are not born with it, but our experiences can influence our ability to act when the context demands action. To state that leadership is a mystery is an understatement. We cannot define it, and yet we can recognize it. So we start to use terms to describe what we observe and arrive at a definition, and then try to explain it, predict it, and develop it.

Throughout history, many people have speculated about leadership and its nature. Howe, for example, proposes the field of leadership is too narrowly viewed and challenges to be open to leadership in its many forms. This complexity makes it difficult for researchers, authors, or philosophers to arrive at a common definition of leadership. The behavioral sciences have been the home of many of these investigations, but as the field grows, leadership itself is increasingly considered a cross-disciplinary concept.

The study of leadership began with the focus on control and hierarchy, but that is changing. For example, Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, and Maxneyski Mendenhall, M., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., Mazneyski, M. explored global leadership and attempted to define a universal leader. They observed a shift from hierarchal leadership (the boss tells you what to do and how to do it) to a more participatory leadership (the boss discusses the task with the team as they formulate a plan). The ancient view of global leadership was one of domination, commanding followers, and clear demonstrations of the power of a leader. This reflected a more of authoritarian style than a participative style of leadership that we observe today. According to Rajah, Song and Arvey, Rajah, R., Song, Z. Arvey, R., A., there is a current shift from the perceptive of a leaders’ controlling perspective to one of the followers’ participatory perspective. Across fields, leadership is increasing perceived as a dynamic relationship involving leader-follower behaviors. Today, issues such as diversity, gender, culture and ethics are increasingly considered relevant, even critical, elements of leadership. Day and Antonakis suggest a new paradigm where leadership is, in fact, just starting to be understood as a hybrid approach that combines insights, frameworks, strategies, and approaches across disciplines.

As globalization increases and our interconnected world becomes smaller, there is a growing appreciation for the role of an effective leader in terms of vision, success, and overall organization effectiveness. Leaders are required to possess increasingly complex skill sets and are expected to effectively communicate with individuals, groups and teams, and within and between organizations. This gives rise to the central question: how best to prepare or develop effective leaders? Avolio, Walumbwa,38Weber Avolio, B., Walumbwa provide a developmental approach, conceptualizing authentic leadership as a pattern of leadership behavior that develops from a combination of positive psychological qualities and strong ethics. Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber also suggest that leadership is composed of four distinct but related components; self-awareness, internalized moral perspectives, balanced processing, and relational transparency.

We can observe that leadership has been investigated, and that it has many factors, but we are still challenged to fully answer our central question: what is leadership? We’ll conclude with a term from the US Navy: deckplate leadership. Get out of the office and get on the deckplates. It means that, in order to get the job done an effective leader has to be on the deck of the ship, interacting and learning what are the challenges, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities present, emphasizing both task orientation with relationship. That takes initiative, self-motivation, skills, and talent, all elements of effective leadership.

From: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/an-introduction-to-group-communication/s10-
01-what-is-leadership.html

1. Dwell on the notion of leadership.

2. Describe a leader you know or have known in the past that you perceived as skilled or effective. How did they act and what did they do that was inspirational?

3. Think of a leader you were challenged to follow or perceived as ineffective. What did they do or say that was ineffective? How would you characterize this leader’s style and why?

Exercise 5. Agree or disagree with the following statement: “To become a leader, you need to talk; to stay a leader, you need to listen”. What examples can you give to support your viewpoint?

Exercise 6. Agree or disagree with the following statement: “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things”. Give your reasons.

Exercise 7. Group synergy is unlikely in at least two situations: when social loafing occurs and when members take a free ride. Identify the situations below as social loafing or free-riding.



Situation 1

Liza and three other students are given the task of working collectively on a project. They will receive one grade for the paper. Knowing that last year Liza wrote a similar paper, three students do not make much of an effort working on the group project even though they made an effort on other assignments in which they worked alone. Liza writes the paper herself.



Situation 2

Jacob is one individual in a group of ten. The group is given the assignment to propose a new set of rules for the organization to which they belong. The group begins to brainstorm, and Jacob, whenever he feels like sharing a proposal, is unable to because everyone talks at once, and his proposal would go unheard if he were to volunteer it to the group. After several minutes of attempting to speak, Jacob sits back in his chair and waits for the group to break up.



Situation 3

Employees of a company are part of a committee to write a new employee manual. During a committee meeting, some of the employees did not make much of an effort and had few suggestions. These employees had made a much greater effort on other tasks in which they worked alone.

Exercise 8. Complete the table.

TASK ROLES

Role

Description

Example

Coordinator

“Krista’s comment relate well to what Erik was saying.”

Stimulates group to take action

“How many of you are willing to bring in a video on conflict for the next class?”

Elaborator

“I think what Kristina and Jennifer are suggesting is that we first explain nonverbal before we turn to verbal communication.”

Assesses the group’s work by higher standards

“This is okay, but I think Lisa needs to give more feedback.”

Information-giver

Provides helpful information

Information-seeker

Asks for clarification

“Lisa D. or Laura, could you please tell me what you said about disconfirming responses?”

Recorder

“Last class we did not get to J-P’s presentation. Dave and Michelle had just finished theirs.”

Takes responsibility for tasks

“I checked out the VCR for Adam and Leigh Anne’s presentations.”

MAINTENANCE

ROLES

Encourager

Provides positive feedback

Accepts ideas of others in group

“Let’s follow Cotton’s plan – he had the right idea.”

Compromiser

Attempts to reach a solution everyone finds acceptable

Facilitates participation from everyone in group

“I don’t think we’ve heard from Monique yet.”

Harmonizer

“After that exam, we deserve a free meal!”

Evaluates group progress

“I think we’ve learned a lot so far. Sara and Heather gave us great information.”

NEGATIVE ROLES

Aggressor

Acts antagonistic towards other group members and their ideas

Dominator

Interrupting – “I’m going to tell you the six reasons why this is a bad idea.”

Refuses to cooperate with other’s ideas

“I refuse to play Desert Survival.”

Help-Seeker

Acts helpless to avoid work

Avoids work

“Why don’t we just go have drinks instead of finishing this project.”

Presents own viewpoint and needs

“I can’t meet tomorrow. I need to sleep late and call my mom.”

Self-confessor

“I really like coffee. Yesterday I went to Kiva Han. Their coffee is better than what you get elsewhere...”

Exercise 9. Read the text. Have you ever found yourself in a similar situation?

The Abilene Paradox

By Jerry B. Harvey

The July afternoon in Coleman, Texas (population 5,607) was particularly hot – 104 degrees as measured by the Walgreen’s Rexall Ex-Lax temperature gauge. In addition, the wind was blowing fine-gained West Texas topsoil through the house. But the afternoon was still tolerable – even potentially enjoyable. There was a fan going on the back porch; there was cold lemonade; and finally, there was entertainment. Dominoes. Perfect for the conditions. The game required little more physical exertion than an occasional mumbled comment, “Shuffle ‘em,” and an unhurried movement of the arm to place the spots in the appropriate perspective on the table. All in all, it had the makings of an agreeable Sunday afternoon in Coleman – this is, it was until my father-in-law suddenly said, “Let’s get in the car and go to Abilene and have dinner at the cafeteria.”

I thought, “What, go to Abilene? Fifty-three miles? In this dust storm and heat? And in an unairconditioned 1958 Buick?”

But my wife chimed in with, “Sounds like a great idea. I’d like to go. How about you, Jerry?” Since my own preferences were obviously out of step with the rest I replied, “Sounds good to me,” and added, “I just hope your mother wants to go.”

“Of course I want to go,” said my mother-in-law. “I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time.”

So into the car and off to Abilene we went. My predictions were fulfilled. The heat was brutal. We were coated with a fine layer of dust that was cemented with perspiration by the time we arrived. The food at the cafeteria provided first-rate testimonial material for antacid commercials.

Some four hours and 106 miles later we returned to Coleman, hot and exhausted. We sat in front of the fan for a long time in silence. Then, both to be sociable and to break the silence, I said, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?”

No one spoke. Finally my mother-in-law said, with some irritation, “Well, to tell the truth, I really didn’t enjoy it much and would rather have stayed here. I just went along because the three of you were so enthusiastic about going. I wouldn’t have gone if you all hadn’t pressured me into it.”

I couldn’t believe it. “What do you mean ‘you all’?” I said. “Don’t put me in the ‘you all’ group. I was delighted to be doing what we were doing. I didn’t want to go. I only went to satisfy the rest of you. You’re the culprits.”

My wife looked shocked. “Don’t call me a culprit. You and Daddy and Mama were the ones who wanted to go. I just went along to be sociable and to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in heat like that.”

Her father entered the conversation abruptly. “Hell!” he said.

He proceeded to expand on what was already absolutely clear. “Listen, I never wanted to go to Abilene. I just thought you might be bored. You visit so seldom I wanted to be sure you enjoyed it. I would have preferred to play another game of dominoes and eat the leftovers in the icebox.”

After the outburst of recrimination we all sat back in silence. Here we were, four reasonably sensible people who, of our own volition, had just taken a 106-mile trip across a godforsaken desert in a furnace-like temperature through a cloud-like dust storm to eat unpalatable food at a hole-in-the-wall cafeteria in Abilene, when none of us had really wanted to go. In fact, to be more accurate, we’d done just the opposite of what we wanted to do. The whole situation simply didn’t make sense.

J. B. Harvey. The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement

Exercise 10. Read the texts and consider the tasks below.

Groupthink

In 2008, the United States experienced one of the worst economic disasters in its history. Years of speculation in the U.S. housing market, combined with loose lending practices and risky trading, set off a record number of home foreclosures. In response, stocks suddenly tanked and over-leveraged banks failed. When the chaos finally subsided, people began asking how such a thing could have happened. Why did banks assume so much risk? Why were unqualified borrowers granted large mortgages? How could Wall Street’s brightest minds trade on financial products they themselves couldn’t understand?

Some of the answers may be found in groupthink theory. The term “groupthink,” defined by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, refers to how cohesive groups of people make and justify faulty decisions. People affected by groupthink usually feel pressured to conform to the views expressed by an influential group leader. They hesitate to voice concerns for fear of being shamed or ostracized, and, in the absence of dissent, they assume all other group members approve of the decisions being made. Alternatives to the group’s actions are either dismissed or never considered at all. Outsiders who raise objections are often regarded as enemies and dehumanized. Groupthinking most often arises in homogenous, insulated groups that possess no clear guidelines for decision making.

When groupthink occurs, creativity, mental efficiency and moral judgment become impaired. Objectivity suffers. Group members refuse to fully assess risks and reject expert advice. Once alternatives are discarded, they are not reevaluated. Only information that supports the group’s viewpoint is discussed and accepted. Since the group believes it is immune to failure, it refrains from making contingency plans.

Many symptoms of groupthink can be seen in the events that lead up to the 2008 financial crisis. Wall Street CEOs believed their companies were too big and profitable to fail. Investors trusted portfolio managers who said credit default swaps based on risky mortgages would result in guaranteed returns. Unprecedented levels of leveraging were rationalized in light of soaring stock prices and wide profit margins. Bankers and homeowners assumed the housing boom would continue indefinitely, leading many people to sign for mortgages they could barely afford. Economists, accountants and regulators who expressed concerns about the situation were effectively threatened, marginalized or ignored.

Other famous examples of groupthink can be found throughout history. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy approved a CIA plan to invade Cuba and overthrow its leader, Fidel Castro. Kennedy’s belief in the infallibility of the mission and its organizers resulted in troops being inadequately equipped for combat. Members of Kennedy’s administration who disagreed with the mission failed to speak up. The event, known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion, ended in disaster.

Similar circumstances contributed to the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986. Eager to launch the shuttle on schedule, NASA managers ignored warnings about launching in low temperatures. They also knew of a flaw in the shuttle’s O-rings but did nothing about it. Engineers who first opposed the launch for safety reasons later assented. Seventy-three seconds after the shuttle took off, it burst into pieces, killing all seven of its crew members.

Whether a group will succumb to groupthink depends on the norms the group establishes for decision making. Groups that refrain from promoting a single agenda, encourage members to share their concerns, allow independent evaluation, seek expert input and feedback, critically weigh all alternatives and develop contingency plans can avoid and even correct groupthink. Those that lack impartial leadership, good decision-making methods and external input, on the other hand, are highly susceptible to groupthink. High-stress situations, such as those involving external threats or moral dilemmas, can also lead to groupthinking.

From: http://www.communicationstudies.com/communication-theories/groupthink

Symptoms of Groupthink

Rationalization

This is when team members convince themselves that despite evidence to the contrary, the decision or alternative being presented is the best one.

“Those other people don’t agree with us because they haven’t researched the problem as extensively as we have”.

Peer Pressure

When a team member expresses an opposing opinion or questions the rationale behind a decision, the rest of the team members work together to pressure or penalize that person into compliance.

“Well if you really feel that we’re making a mistake you can always leave the team”.

Complacency

After a few successes, the group begins to feel like any decision they make is the right one because there is no disagreement from any source.

“Our track record speaks for itself. We are unstoppable!”

Moral High Ground

Each member of the group views him or herself as moral: The combination of moral minds is therefore thought not to be likely to make a poor or immoral decision. When morality is used as a basis for decision-making, the pressure to conform is even greater because no individual wants to be perceived as immoral.

“We all know what is right and wrong, and this is definitely right”.

Stereotyping

As the group becomes more uniform in their views, they begin to see outsiders as possessing a different and inferior set of morals and characteristics from themselves. These perceived negative characteristics are then used to discredit the opposition.

“Lawyers will find any excuse to argue, even when the facts are clearly against them”.

Censorship

Members censor their opinions in order to conform.

“If everyone else agrees then my thoughts to the contrary must be wrong”.

Information that is gathered is censored so that it also conforms to, or supports the chosen decision or alternative.

“Don’t listen to that nonsense, they don't have a clue about what is really going on”.

Illusion of Unanimity

Because no one speaks out, everyone in the group feels the group’s decision is unanimous. This is what feeds the Groupthink and causes it to spiral out of control.

“I see we all agree so it’s decided then”.

From: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_82.htm

1. How do people affected by groupthink usually behave?

2. What groups are more likely to be affected by groupthink?

3. What are the effects of groupthink?

4. Were you ever affected by groupthink?

5. What are the ways of preventing groupthink?

Exercise 11. Agree or disagree with the following statement: “Group climate is roughly analogous to geographical climate.” Give your reasons.

Exercise 12. Read the text and consider the tasks below.

Climate in the Workplace

By A. J. Dukes

“No, I don’t want to clean the bathroom again!” I thought to myself as my manager Tim told me that I would be responsible for cleaning the restrooms at the end of the night. It was going to be the third consecutive night I would have to do this at the end of my shift and I was not happy with it. Yes, I knew that it wasn’t Tim’s choice to give me this task, as the owner gives him the list of chores to do when closing, but I still held a grudge. A small part of me wanted to march to the front office where Rob, the owner and man in charge of the night operations sits, so I can tell him that it was unreasonable that I had to do this for three nights in a row. But I chose not to because I knew the climate inside this organization was defensive. Any input I would give most likely would have lead to me being fired or reprimanded in some way because that is how management dealt with conflict at this establishment.

This incident occurred three years ago while I was an employee at a children’s party place called Pump It Up. Management was terrible and did a great job in setting up this type of workplace environment. They would set up work schedules so that employees had little chance to work with friends of theirs. They told us they did this so they wouldn’t have to worry about us talking to each other in the arenas; employees despised this policy. Also they wanted employees to be as detached from the workplace as possible. Having employee parties was always out of the questions, as coworkers felt they couldn’t befriend the people they worked with because management wouldn’t let speak to each other openly. Even breaks were handled in a manner that was very unethical. Managers would break employees in cycles where no two coworkers ever had a chance to be on break together. I hated each and every one of these policies that made up Pump it Up’s defensive climate (a climate I am thrilled to no longer be a part of) and think that this way of running a company is just wrong.

From: http://scom320class.blogspot.com.by/2012/07/defensive-v-supportive-climates-in.html

1. Describe the relationships between climate and productivity.

2. Identify behaviors that contributed to a defensive group climate at Pump It Up.

3. Have you ever been in a group that seems stuck in endless loops of conflict, where nothing gets done, and all the energy was spent on interpersonal conflicts? Can you share an example?

4. Have you ever been in a group that gets things done, where everyone seems to know their role and responsibilities, where all members contribute and perform? Can you share an example?

Exercise 13. Read the text. Dwell on the ways of enhancing problem solving.

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

The first 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.

The second criterion for good brainstorming is that it should encourage and praise “piggybacking” on ideas which have already emerged.

The third one 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. 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.”

From: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/an-introduction-to-group-communication/s13-
03-effective-strategies-for-group.html

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 (1963).

The first 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.

The second criterion for good brainstorming is that it should encourage and praise “piggybacking” on ideas which have already emerged.

The third one 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. 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.”

From: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/an-introduction-to-group-communication/s13-
03-effective-strategies-for-group.html

III. Applying the model

Exercise 1. List the family and social groups you belong to or interact with on a regular basis – for example, within a 24-hour period or within a week. Also consider forums, online communities, and websites where you follow threads of discussion or post regularly. Share your results with your groupmates.

Exercise 2. Think about your academic group. What stage of group formation are you currently at? What stage will you be at when the academic year ends?

Exercise 3. Think of a group you belong to and identify some roles played by group members, including yourself. Have your roles, and those of others, changed over time? Are some roles more positive than others?

Exercise 4. Identify one group you no longer belong to. List at least one reason why you are no longer a member of this group. Compare your results with those of your groupmates’.

Exercise 5. Analyze group communication in the film The Internship (2013) or another film of your choice. Pay special attention to group decision making and the roles group members play.