what is the purpose of problem solving teams

Members-only Content

• Monthly Member Events
• Event Session Videos
• Experience Reports
• Research Papers
• Share a Community Event
• Submit an Article to the Blog
• Submit a Member Initiative
• Promote a Training Event

Become an Agile Alliance member!

Your membership enables us to offer a wealth of resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and so much more! And, while you’re supporting our non-profit mission, you’ll also gain access to a range of valuable member benefits. Learn more

• Join Us Today
• Member Portal
• Membership FAQs
• Terms and Conditions
• Corporate Members

Agile Conferences

• Agile en Chile 2024
• Agile Executive Forum
• Agile2024 European Experience
• All Agile Alliance Events
• Past Conferences
• Become an Event Sponsor

Virtual Events

• Member Events Calendar
• Agile MiniCon
• BYOC Lean Coffee
• Agile Tech Talks
• Member Meet & Greet
• Agile Coaching Network
• Full Events Calendar
• Community Events
• Non-profit Events
• Agile Training
• Sponsored Meetup Groups
• Submit a Non-profit Event
• Submit a For-profit Training
• Event Funding Request
• Global Events Calendars

Agile en Chile – 2024

• Events Calendar
• BYOC – Lean Coffee
• Member Meet & Greet
• View All Events
• Submit an Event
• Meetup Groups
• Past Conferences & Events

Agile Essentials is designed to bring you up to speed on the basic concepts and principles of Agile with articles, videos, glossary terms, and more.

Agile Essentials

Download the Agile Manifesto

To download a free PDF copy of the Agile Manifesto and 12 Principles of Agile, simply sign-up for our newsletter. Agile Alliance members can download it for free.

• Agile Essentials Overview
• Agile Manifesto
• 12 Principles Behind the Manifesto
• A Short History of Agile
• Subway Map to Agile Practices
• Agile Glossary
• Introductory Videos

Recent Blog Posts

Agile Coach Camp Worldwide is going to Costa Rica

Agile Alliance Call for Nominations for the Board of Directors

Agile Alliance Launches Young Professionals Committee

View all blog posts

Agile Resources

The new agile resource guide.

Find Agile services and products from our member companies in our new Agile Resource Guide . Many listings in the guide feature exclusive offers just for Agile Alliance members. View the guide 

• Remote Working Guide
• Event Sessions
• Content Library

Sustainability Manifesto

The  Agile Sustainability Initiative has created the Agile Sustainability Manifesto in an effort to grow awareness about sustainability within the Agile community and inspire a more sustainable way of working. Read and sign now

MEMBER INITIATIVES

• Agile Sustainability Initiative
• Principle 12 Initiative
• Agile in Color Initiative
• Agile Coach Camp Worldwide
• Agile Coaching Ethics

View all initiatives

Your Community

Global development.

• LATAM Community
• India Community

Global Affiliates

• Community Groups
• Community Services
• Member Initiatives
• LATAM Community Development
• India Community Development
• Volunteer Signup

OUR POLICIES

Become a sponsor.

Being an Agile Alliance sponsor is a great way to introduce your company to our members to build awareness around your products and services. The Call for Agile2024 Sponsorships is now open, and there are great options and opportunities still available! Learn more >

• About Agile Alliance
• Code of Conduct
• Board of Directors
• Agile Alliance Brazil
• Agile Alliance New Zealand
• Policies, Reports & Bylaws
• Logo and Media Files
• Become a Sponsor

Agile Event Session

Problem solving teams: creating resilient organisations through managing complexity, this video content is for agile alliance members only.

If you’re already an active member, please log in now .

To view this content, and gain access to many more valuable resources, conference discounts, and invitations to exclusive networking and learning events, please consider becoming an Agile Alliance member .

Abstract/Description

One reason many of us came to the field of software engineering or software development is because we enjoy solving problems. It exercises out mental muscles, and gives us a feeling of satisfaction to know we can add value to our organizations and customers by solving tough problems. However, as the organizations we work for get bigger, and the scope of work gets bigger, so too do the problems we need to solve. There comes a point where we can’t solve them alone, or even with the immediate team we work with. Some problems require a cross-organization, multi-function approach. When our goal is to be a more agile, lean-thinking organization, we need to develop approaches to solving these types of problems.

This is where Problem Solving Teams come into play. Problem Solving Teams are temporary structures that bring together leaders and team members from across the organization to focus on solving a specific problem. The benefits are many, including not just a solved problem, but also a more resilient organization, a stronger social network and a growing cohort of problem solvers with increased skills and abilities.

This approach draws from many influences, including complexity science, social network theory, military doctrine, flight crews, and emergency responders. We have been experimenting with this approach across several areas that involve multiple geographies and multiple functions.

Additional Resources

Speaker(s) may be willing to present this session at local group meetings and other events.

• Conference or Event
• Session Type
• Audience Levels

More Agile Event Session Videos

Agile – 5 key points for managers

Hacking Culture for Change Management

Have a comment join the conversation, discover the many benefits of membership.

Your membership enables Agile Alliance to offer a wealth of first-rate resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and more — all geared toward helping Agile practitioners reach their full potential and deliver innovative, Agile solutions.

Thank you to our valued Agile Alliance Annual Partners

Our new Annual Partner Program offers a new and exciting level of engagement beyond event sponsorship.

Our Cornerstone Corporate Supporting Members

Our Corporate Supporting Members are vital to the mission of Agile Alliance.  Click here to view all corporate members.

©2024 Agile Alliance  |  All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

©2024 Agile Alliance All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

• Welcome back!

Not yet a member? Sign up now

• Renew Membership
• Agile Alliance Events
• Agile en Español
• Agile en Chile
• Resources Overview
• Agile Books
• Content Library by Category
• Content Standards
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Privacy Overview

The Lean Post / Articles / The Deeper Purpose of Problem-Solving

Problem Solving

The Deeper Purpose of Problem-Solving

By Régis Medina

October 27, 2020

Why problem-solving in a lean setting is a unique opportunity to think about how we think and develop expertise where it counts.

Let’s face it: we live in an illusion. That is to say, modern theories of cognition demonstrate that we do not really see what is around us. Instead, our eyes dart from one detail to the next to construct a convincing model of the world. Then we base our decisions on this model. Moreover, we are oblivious to the basic brain mechanisms that govern our actions, a phenomenon that you may have noticed when emerging from your thoughts and finding yourself in a place without remembering how you got there.

While this marvel of biology lets us accomplish great things, it also proves unreliable on many occasions. The mental structure of a mistake is “I thought that … but …,” and we make lots of them. For example, “I thought the department store was open on Sundays, but it was closed when I arrived,” or “I thought that batteries were included when I bought a clock, but they were not, and I was not able to use it when I got home.”

Mistakes are not restricted to our personal lives, of course. A typical workday is littered with errors, small and large. And this is why lean is so brilliant: It is a complete business strategy based on rooting out and fixing our misconceptions. But what does that mean in practice?

Most people interested in lean are familiar with the plan-do-check-act ( PDCA ) cycle. However, a common misconception about this method is that its main purpose is to improve processes. The logic goes like this: You find a problem, discover a missing standard, fix it, and then train everybody to use it. While this understanding is not wrong per se, it can lead to an environment where people are expected to follow too many processes without understanding why they are doing it — a dangerous situation if the company operates in a changing environment.

A better way to understand PDCA is to look at it as a means to root out misconceptions and fix the glitches in our thinking.

Let’s take an example. Users of a web application are complaining that pages are taking too long to load. By responding to a few “why’s,” one can easily get closer to the root of the technical problem:

While we should certainly delve deeper into the technical details to find the specific point of change to fix the issue, let’s remain at this level for the sake of argument — because we can already infer that we will end up with two kinds of countermeasures:

• Fix the build script so that CSS and HTML files are compressed and load faster.
• Add a check or warning to prevent users from uploading images larger than 1Mo, or better yet, transform the uploaded files automatically without burdening users with extra work .

The problem would probably be fixed either way, but we wouldn’t have actually learned much. We can expect the same people, and the same company, to repeat the same kind of mistakes in the future.

A better way to guide our search for root causes consists in trying to answer the question:

What is the mistake we keep repeating that creates this problem?

In our example, this could look like this:

By using this approach, learning can occur because it makes us aware of the shortcomings of our mental models. However, this is only the beginning.

By solving problems repeatedly in a given area, we can explore the factors that influence performance and progressively build a model of these factors. In our example, this approach would look like this:

This model can then be taught, discussed, and extended because it’s a standard: a collection of knowledge points that serve as a basis for training and reflection.

Ultimately, the goal of problem-solving is not just to fix tools and processes.

By creating standards, a company can deliberately build expertise in any domain. When done on topics that directly relate to customer preferences, and when performed by everybody every day, this creates a dynamic in which people are always building knowledge and changing to adapt to customer needs, which is the essence of the lean strategy.

Ultimately, the goal of problem-solving is not just to fix tools and processes. Instead, it is a unique opportunity to think about how we think and develop expertise where it counts. In addition, it is a robust, hands-on formula to create a company that keeps adapting to changing market conditions and creates value for society over decades.

Problem Definition Practice

Improve your ability to break down problems into their specific, actionable parts.

Written by:

About Régis Medina

Régis Medina was one of the early pioneers of Agile software development methodologies in the late 90s. In 2009, he embarked on a journey to explore the practices of Toyota, eventually making several trips to Japan, while working with dozens of teams in a variety of IT activities. He now works with prominent entrepreneurs of the French Tech community to build fast and resilient scale-ups. He is the author of  Learning to Scale: The Secret to Growing a Fast and Resilient Company .

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Revolutionizing Logistics: DHL eCommerce’s Journey Applying Lean Thinking to Automation  

Podcast by Matthew Savas

Transforming Corporate Culture: Bestbath’s Approach to Scaling Problem-Solving Capability

Building a Problem-Solving Culture: Insights from Barton Malow’s Lean University

Related books

The Power of Process – A Story of Innovative Lean Process Development

by Eric Ethington and Matt Zayko

Welcome Problems, Find Success – Creating Toyota Cultures Around the World

by Nate Furuta

Related events

April 08, 2024 | Coach-Led Online Course

Managing to Learn

April 16, 2024 | Coach-Led Online Course

Improvement Kata/Coaching Kata

Explore topics.

Privacy Overview

How Managers Can Improve Team Problem-Solving

Teaching good problem-solving means learning from previous solutions..

Posted March 28, 2024 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• What Is a Career
• Find a career counselor near me
• We can access vast information online, but critical thinking skills are still essential.
• The key to improving team problem-solving is providing reliable resources you trust.
• Build a library of problem-solving resources, including creating step-by-step instructions and checklists.

By now, it is a hackneyed truth about today’s world that we all have endless amounts of information at our fingertips, available instantly, all the time. We have multiple competing answers to any question on any subject—more answers than an entire team, let alone an individual, could possibly master in a lifetime. The not quite as obvious punchline is this: There has been a radical change in how much information a person needs to keep inside their head versus accessible through their fingertips.

Nobody should be so short-sighted or so old-fashioned as to write off the power of being able to fill knowledge gaps on demand. Yet this phenomenon is often attributed to a growing critical thinking skills gap experienced in many organizations today.

Many people today are simply not in the habit of really thinking on their feet. Without a lot of experience puzzling through problems, it should be no surprise that so many people are often puzzled when they encounter unanticipated problems.

Here’s the thing: Nine out of ten times, you don’t need to make important decisions on the basis of your own judgment at the moment. You are much better off if you can rely on the accumulated experience of the organization in which you are working, much like we rely on the accumulated information available online.

The key is ensuring that your direct reports are pulling from sources of information and experience they and the organization can trust.

The first step to teaching anybody the basics of problem-solving is to anticipate the most common recurring problems and prepare with ready-made solutions. It may seem counterintuitive, but problem-solving skills aren’t built by reinventing the wheel: From learning and implementing ready-made solutions, employees will learn a lot about the anatomy of a good solution. This will put them in a much better position to improvise when they encounter a truly unanticipated problem.

The trick is to capture best practices, turn them into standard operating procedures, and deploy them to your team for use as job aids. This can be as simple as an “if, then” checklist:

• If A happens, then do B.
• If C happens, then do D.
• If E happens, then do F.

Here are seven tips to help you build a library of problem-solving resources for your team:

1. Break things down and write them out. Start with what you know. Break down the task or project into a list of step-by-step instructions, incorporating any resources or job aids you currently use. Then, take each step further by breaking it down into a series of concrete actions. Get as granular as you possibly can—maybe even go overboard a little. It will always be easier to remove unnecessary steps from your checklist than to add in necessary steps later.

2. Follow your instructions as if you were a newbie. Once you have a detailed, step-by-step outline, try using it as though you were totally new to the task or project. Follow the instructions exactly as you have written them: Avoid subconsciously filling in any gaps with your own expertise. Don't assume that anything goes without saying, especially if the task or project is especially technical or complex. As you follow your instructions, make corrections and additions as you go. Don't make the mistake of assuming you will remember to make necessary corrections or additions later.

3. Make final edits. Follow your updated and improved instructions one final time. Make any further corrections or additions as necessary. Include as many details as possible for and between each step.

4. Turn it into a checklist. Now, it's time to translate your instructions into a checklist format. Checklists are primarily tools of mindfulness : They slow us down and focus us on the present actions under our control. Consider whether the checklist will be more helpful if it is phrased in past or present tense. Who will be using the checklist? What information do they need to know? How much of the checklist can be understood at a glance?

5. Get outside input. Ask someone to try and use your checklist to see if it works for them. Get their feedback about what was clear, what was unclear, and why it was clear or unclear. Ask about any questions they had that weren't answered by the checklist. Solicit other suggestions, thoughts, or improvements you may not have considered. Incorporate their input and then repeat the process with another tester.

6. Use your checklist. Don't simply create your checklist for others and then abandon it. Use it in your own work going forward, and treat it as a living document. Make clarifying notes, additions, and improvements as the work naturally changes over time. Remember, checklists are tools of mindfulness. Use them to tune in to the work you already do and identify opportunities for growth and improvement.

7. Establish a system for saving drafts, templates, and examples of work that can be shared with others . Of course, checklists are just one type of shareable job aid. Sharing examples of your previous work or another team member is another useful way to help someone jumpstart a new task or project. This can be anything from final products to drafts, sketches, templates, or even videos.

Bruce Tulgan, JD, is the founder and CEO of RainmakerThinking and the author of The Art of Being Indispensable at Work.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Complex Problem Solving in Teams: The Impact of Collective Orientation on Team Process Demands

Associated data.

Complex problem solving is challenging and a high-level cognitive process for individuals. When analyzing complex problem solving in teams, an additional, new dimension has to be considered, as teamwork processes increase the requirements already put on individual team members. After introducing an idealized teamwork process model, that complex problem solving teams pass through, and integrating the relevant teamwork skills for interdependently working teams into the model and combining it with the four kinds of team processes (transition, action, interpersonal, and learning processes), the paper demonstrates the importance of fulfilling team process demands for successful complex problem solving within teams. Therefore, results from a controlled team study within complex situations are presented. The study focused on factors that influence action processes, like coordination, such as emergent states like collective orientation, cohesion, and trust and that dynamically enable effective teamwork in complex situations. Before conducting the experiments, participants were divided by median split into two-person teams with either high ( n = 58) or low ( n = 58) collective orientation values. The study was conducted with the microworld C3Fire, simulating dynamic decision making, and acting in complex situations within a teamwork context. The microworld includes interdependent tasks such as extinguishing forest fires or protecting houses. Two firefighting scenarios had been developed, which takes a maximum of 15 min each. All teams worked on these two scenarios. Coordination within the team and the resulting team performance were calculated based on a log-file analysis. The results show that no relationships between trust and action processes and team performance exist. Likewise, no relationships were found for cohesion. Only collective orientation of team members positively influences team performance in complex environments mediated by action processes such as coordination within the team. The results are discussed in relation to previous empirical findings and to learning processes within the team with a focus on feedback strategies.

Introduction

Complex problems in organizational contexts are seldom solved by individuals. Generally, interdependently working teams of experts deal with complex problems (Fiore et al., 2010 ), which are characterized by element interactivity/ interconnectedness, dynamic developments, non-transparency and multiple, and/or conflicting goals (Dörner et al., 1983 ; Brehmer, 1992 ; Funke, 1995 ). Complex problem solving “takes place for reducing the barrier between a given start state and an intended goal state with the help of cognitive activities and behavior. Start state, intended goal state, and barriers prove complexity, change dynamically over time, and can be partially intransparent” (Funke, 2012 , p. 682). Teams dealing with complex problems in interdependent work contexts, for example in disaster, crisis or accident management, are called High Responsibility Teams. They are named High Responsibility Teams (HRTs; Hagemann, 2011 ; Hagemann et al., 2011 ) due to their dynamic and often unpredictable working conditions and demanding work contexts, in which technical faults and slips have severe consequences for human beings and the environment if they are not identified and resolved within the team immediately (Kluge et al., 2009 ). HRTs bear responsibility regarding lives of third parties and their own lives based on their actions and consequences.

The context of interdependently working HRTs, dealing with complex problems, is described as follows (Zsambok, 1997 ): Members of interdependently working teams have to reach ill-defined or competing goals in common in poor structured, non-transparent and dynamically changing situations under the consideration of rules of engagement and based on several cycles of joint action. Some or all goals are critical in terms of time and the consequences of actions result in decision-based outcomes with high importance for the culture (e.g., human life). In HRT contexts, added to the features of the complexity of the problem, is the complexity of relationships, which is called social complexity (Dörner, 1989/2003 ) or crew coordination complexity (Kluge, 2014 ), which results from the interconnectedness between multiple agents through coordination requirements. The dynamic control aspect of the continuous process is coupled with the need to coordinate multiple highly interactive processes imposing high coordination demands (Roth and Woods, 1988 ; Waller et al., 2004 ; Hagemann et al., 2012 ).

Within this article, it is important to us to describe the theoretical background of complex problem solving in teams in depth and to combine different but compatible theoretical approaches, in order to demonstrate their theoretical and practical use in the context of the analysis of complex problem solving in teams. In Industrial and Organizational Psychology, a detailed description of tasks and work contexts that are in the focus of the analysis is essential. The individual or team task is the point of intersection between organization and individual as a “psychologically most relevant part” of the working conditions (Ulich, 1995 ). Thus, the tasks and the teamwork context of teams that deal with complex problems is of high relevance in the present paper. We will comprehensively describe the context of complex problem solving in teams by introducing a model of an idealized teamwork process that complex problem solving teams pass through and extensively integrate the relevant teamwork skills for these interdependently working teams into the idealized teamwork process model.

Furthermore, we will highlight the episodic aspect concerning complex problem solving in teams and combine the agreed on transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes of teamwork with the idealized teamwork process model. Because we are interested in investigating teamwork competencies and action processes of complex problem solving teams, we will analyze the indirect effect of collective orientation on team performance through the teams' coordination behavior. The focusing of the study will be owed to its validity. Even though that we know that more aspects of the theoretical framework might be of interest and could be analyzed, we will focus on a detail within the laboratory experiment for getting reliable and valid results.

Goal, task, and outcome interdependence in teamwork

Concerning interdependence, teamwork research focuses on three designated features, which are in accordance with general process models of human action (Hertel et al., 2004 ). One type is goal interdependence, which refers to the degree to which teams have distinct goals as well as a linkage between individual members and team goals (Campion et al., 1993 ; Wageman, 1995 ). A second type is task interdependence, which refers to the interaction between team members. The team members depend on each other for work accomplishment, and the actions of one member have strong implications for the work process of all members (Shea and Guzzo, 1987 ; Campion et al., 1993 ; Hertel et al., 2004 ). The third type is outcome interdependence, which is defined as the extent to which one team member's outcomes depend on the performance of other members (Wageman, 1995 ). Accordingly, the rewards for each member are based on the total team performance (Hertel et al., 2004 ). This can occur, for instance, if a team receives a reward based on specific performance criteria. Although interdependence is often the reason why teams are formed in the first place, and it is stated as a defining attribute of teams (Salas et al., 2008 ), different levels of task interdependence exist (Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Arthur et al., 2005 ).

The workflow pattern of teams can be

• Independent or pooled (activities are performed separately),
• Sequential (activities flow from one member to another in a unidirectional manner),
• Reciprocal (activities flow between team members in a back and forth manner) or
• Intensive (team members must simultaneously diagnose, problem-solve, and coordinate as a team to accomplish a task).

Teams that deal with complex problems work within intensive interdependence, which requires greater coordination patterns compared to lower levels of interdependence (Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Wageman, 1995 ) and necessitates mutual adjustments as well as frequent interaction and information integration within the team (Gibson, 1999 ; Stajkovic et al., 2009 ).

Thus, in addition to the cognitive requirements related to information processing (e.g., encoding, storage and retrieval processes (Hinsz et al., 1997 ), simultaneously representing and anticipating the dynamic elements and predicting future states of the problem, balancing contradictory objectives and decide on the right timing for actions to execute) of individual team members, the interconnectedness between the experts in the team imposes high team process demands on the team members. These team process demands follow from the required interdependent actions of all team members for effectively using all resources, such as equipment, money, time, and expertise, to reach high team performance (Marks et al., 2001 ). Examples for team process demands are the communication for building a shared situation awareness, negotiating conflicting perspectives on how to proceed or coordinating and orchestrating actions of all team members.

A comprehensive model of the idealized teamwork process

The cognitive requirements, that complex problem solving teams face, and the team process demands are consolidated within our model of an idealized teamwork process in Figure ​ Figure1 1 (Hagemann, 2011 ; Kluge et al., 2014 ). Individual and team processes converge sequential and in parallel and influencing factors as well as process demands concerning complex problem solving in teams can be extracted. The core elements of the model are situation awareness, information transfer, individual and shared mental models, coordination and leadership, and decision making.

Relevant teamwork skills (orange color) for interdependently working teams (see Wilson et al., 2010 ) integrated into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Complex problem solving teams are responsible for finding solutions and reaching specified goals. Based on the overall goals various sub goals will be identified at the beginning of the teamwork process in the course of mission analysis, strategy formulation and planning, all aspects of the transition phase (Marks et al., 2001 ). The transition phase processes occur during periods of time when teams focus predominantly on evaluation and/or planning activities. The identified and communicated goals within the team represent relevant input variables for each team member in order to build up a Situation Awareness (SA). SA contains three steps and is the foundation for an ideal and goal directed collaboration within a team (Endsley, 1999 ; Flin et al., 2008 ). The individual SA is the start and end within the idealized teamwork process model. SA means the assessment of a situation which is important for complex problem solving teams, as they work based on the division of labor as well as interdependently and each team member needs to achieve a correct SA and to share it within the team. Each single team member needs to utilize all technical and interpersonal resources in order to collect and interpret up-to-date goal directed information and to share this information with other team members via “closed-loop communication.”

This information transfer focuses on sending and receiving single SA between team members in order to build up a Shared Situation Awareness (SSA). Overlapping cuts of individual SA are synchronized within the team and a bigger picture of the situation is developed. Creating a SSA means sharing a common perspective of the members concerning current events within their environment, their meaning and their future development. This shared perspective enables problem-solving teams to attain high performance standards through corresponding and goal directed actions (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ).

Expectations of each team member based on briefings, individual mental models and interpositional knowledge influence the SA, the information transfer and the consolidation process. Mental models are internal and cognitive representations of relations and processes (e.g., execution of tactics) between various aspects or elements of a situation. They help team members to describe, explain and predict circumstances (Mathieu et al., 2000 ). Mental models possess knowledge elements required by team members in order to assess a current situation in terms of SA. Interpositional knowledge refers to an individual understanding concerning the tasks and duties of all team members, in order to develop an understanding about the impact of own actions on the actions of other team members and vice versa. It supports the team in identifying the information needs and the amount of required help of other members and in avoiding team conflicts (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001 ). This knowledge is the foundation for anticipating the team members' needs for information and it is important for matching information within the team.

Based on the information matching process within the team, a common understanding of the problem, the goals and the current situation is developed in terms of a Shared Mental Model (SMM), which is important for the subsequent decisions. SMM are commonly shared mental models within a team and refer to the organized knowledge structures of all team members, that are shared with each other and which enable the team to interact goal-oriented (Mathieu et al., 2000 ). SMM help complex problem solving teams during high workload to adapt fast and efficiently to changing situations (Waller et al., 2004 ). They also enhance the teams' performance and communication processes (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ; Mathieu et al., 2000 ). Especially under time pressure and in crucial situations when overt verbal communication and explicit coordination is not applicable, SMM are fundamental in order to coordinate implicitly. This information matching process fosters the building of a shared understanding of the current situation and the required actions. In order to do so teamwork skills (see Wilson et al., 2010 ) such as communication, coordination , and cooperation within the team are vitally important. Figure ​ Figure1 1 incorporates the teamwork skills into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Depending on the shared knowledge and SA within the team, the coordination can be based either on well-known procedures or shared expectations within the team or on explicit communication based on task specific phraseology or closed-loop communication. Cooperation needs mutual performance monitoring within the team, for example, in order to apply task strategies to accurately monitor teammate performance and prevent errors (Salas et al., 2005 ). Cooperation also needs backup behavior of each team member, for example, and continuous actions in reference to the collective events. The anticipation of other team members' needs under high workload maintains the teams' performance and the well-being of each team member (Badke-Schaub, 2008 ). A successful pass through the teamwork process model also depends e.g., on the trust and the cohesion within the team and the collective orientation of each team member.

Collective orientation (CO) is defined “as the propensity to work in a collective manner in team settings” (Driskell et al., 2010 , p. 317). Highly collectively oriented people work with others on a task-activity and team-activity track (Morgan et al., 1993 ) in a goal-oriented manner, seek others' input, contribute to team outcomes, enjoy team membership, and value cooperativeness more than power (Driskell et al., 2010 ). Thus, teams with collectively oriented members perform better than teams with non-collectively oriented members (Driskell and Salas, 1992 ). CO, trust and cohesion as well as other coordination and cooperation skills are so called emergent sates that represent cognitive, affective, and motivational states, and not traits, of teams and team members, and which are influenced, for example, by team experience, so that emergent states can be considered as team inputs but also as team outcomes (Marks et al., 2001 ).

Based on the information matching process the complex problem solving team or the team leader needs to make decisions in order to execute actions. The task prioritization and distribution is an integrated part of this step (Waller et al., 2004 ). Depending on the progress of the dynamic, non-transparent and heavily foreseeable situation tasks have to be re-prioritized during episodes of teamwork. Episodes are “temporal cycles of goal-directed activity” in which teams perform (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 359). Thus, the team acts adaptive and is able to react flexible to situation changes. The team coordinates implicitly when each team member knows what he/she has to do in his/her job, what the others expect from him/her and how he/she interacts with the others. In contrast, when abnormal events occur and they are recognized during SA processes, the team starts coordinating explicitly via communication, for example. Via closed-loop communication and based on interpositional knowledge new strategies are communicated within the team and tasks are re-prioritized.

The result of the decision making and action taking flows back into the individual SA and the as-is state will be compared with the original goals. This model of an idealized teamwork process (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) is a regulator circuit with feedback loops, which enables a team to adapt flexible to changing environments and goals. The foundation of this model is the classic Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) framework (Hackman, 1987 ) with a strong focus on the process part. IPO models view processes as mechanisms linking variables such as member, team, or organizational features with outcomes such as performance quality and quantity or members' reactions. This mediating mechanism, the team process , can be defined as “members' interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals” (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 357). That means team members interact interdependently with other members as well as with their environment. These cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward taskwork and goal attainment are represented as gathering situation awareness, communication, coordination, cooperation, the consolidation of information, and task prioritization within our model of an idealized teamwork process. Within the context of complex problem solving, teams have to face team process demands in addition to cognitive challenges related to individual information processing. That means teamwork processes and taskwork to solve complex problems co-occur, the processes guide the execution of taskwork.

The dynamic nature of teamwork and temporal influences on complex problem solving teams are considered within adapted versions (Marks et al., 2001 ; Ilgen et al., 2005 ) of the original IPO framework. These adaptations propose that teams experience cycles of joint action, so called episodes, in which teams perform and also receive feedback for further actions. The IPO cycles occur sequentially and simultaneously and are nested in transition and action phases within episodes in which outcomes from initial episodes serve as inputs for the next cycle (see Figure ​ Figure2). 2 ). These repetitive IPO cycles are a vital element of our idealized teamwork process model, as it incorporates feedback loops in such a way, that the outcomes, e.g., changes within the as-is state, are continuously compared with the original goals. Detected discrepancies within the step of updating SA motivate the team members to consider further actions for goal accomplishment.

Teamwork episodes with repetitive IPO cycles (Marks et al., 2001 ).

When applying this episodic framework to complex problem solving teams it becomes obvious that teams handle different types of taskwork at different phases of task accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001 ). That means episodes consist of two phases, so-called action and transition phases , in which teams are engaged in activities related to goal attainment and in other time in reflecting on past performance and planning for further common actions. The addition of the social complexity to the complexity of the problem within collaborative complex problem solving comes to the fore here. During transition phases teams evaluate their performance, compare the as-is state against goals, reflect on their strategies and plan future activities to guide their goal accomplishment. For example, team members discuss alternative courses of action, if their activities for simulated firefighting, such as splitting team members in order to cover more space of the map, are not successful. During action phases, teams focus directly on the taskwork and are engaged in activities such as exchanging information about the development of the dynamic situation or supporting each other. For example, a team member recognizes high workload of another team member and supports him/her in collecting information or in taking over the required communication with other involved parties.

Transition and action phases

The idealized teamwork process model covers these transition and action phases as well as the processes occurring during these two phases of team functioning, which can be clustered into transition, action, and interpersonal processes. That means during complex problem solving the relevant or activated teamwork processes in the transition and action phases change as teams move back and forth between these phases. As this taxonomy of team processes from Marks et al. ( 2001 ) states that a team process is multidimensional and teams use different processes simultaneously, some processes can occur either during transition periods or during action periods or during both periods. Transition processes especially occur during transition phases and enable the team to understand their tasks, guide their attention, specify goals and develop courses of action for task accomplishment. Thus, transition processes include (see Marks et al., 2001 ) mission analysis, formulation and planning (Prince and Salas, 1993 ), e.g., fighting a forest fire, goal specification (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ), e.g., saving as much houses and vegetation as possible, and strategy formulation (Prince and Salas, 1993 ; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., spreading team members into different geographic directions. Action processes predominantly occur during action phases and support the team in conducting activities directly related to goal accomplishment. Thus, action processes are monitoring progress toward goals (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., collecting information how many cells in a firefighting simulation are still burning, systems monitoring (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ), e.g., tracking team resources such as water for firefighting, team monitoring and backup behavior (Stevens and Campion, 1994 ; Salas et al., 2005 ), e.g., helping a team member and completing a task for him/her, and coordination (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ; Serfaty et al., 1998 ), e.g., orchestrating the interdependent actions of the team members such as exchanging information during firefighting about positions of team members for meeting at the right time at the right place in order to refill the firefighters water tanks. Especially the coordination process is influenced by the amount of task interdependence as coordination becomes more and more important for effective team functioning when interdependence increases (Marks et al., 2001 ). Interpersonal processes occur during transition and action phases equally and lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other processes and govern interpersonal activities (Marks et al., 2001 ). Thus, interpersonal processes include conflict management (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), like the development of team rules, motivation and confidence building (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ), like encourage team members to perform better, and affect management (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., regulating member emotions during complex problem solving.

Summing up, process demands such as transition processes that complex problem solving teams pass through, are mission analysis, planning, briefing and goal specification, visualized on the left side of the idealized teamwork process model (see Figure ​ Figure3). 3 ). The results of these IPO cycles lay the foundation for gathering a good SA and initiating activities directed toward taskwork and goal accomplishment and therefore initiating action processes. The effective execution of action processes depends on the communication, coordination, cooperation, matching of information, and task prioritization as well as emergent team cognition variables (SSA and SMM) within the team. The results, like decisions, of these IPO cycles flow back into the next episode and may initiate further transition processes. In addition, interpersonal processes play a crucial role for complex problem solving teams. That means, conflict management, motivating and confidence building, and affect management are permanently important, no matter whether a team runs through transition or action phases and these interpersonal processes frame the whole idealized teamwork process model. Therefore, interpersonal processes are also able to impede successful teamwork at any point as breakdowns in conflict or affect management can lead to coordination breakdowns (Wilson et al., 2010 ) or problems with monitoring or backing up teammates (Marks et al., 2001 ). Thus, complex problem solving teams have to face these multidimensional team process demands in addition to cognitive challenges, e.g., information storage or retrieval (Hinsz et al., 1997 ), related to individual information processing.

The integration of transition, action, interpersonal, and learning processes into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Team learning opportunities for handling complex problems

In order to support teams in handling complex situations or problems, learning opportunities seem to be very important for successful task accomplishment and for reducing possible negative effects of team process demands. Learning means any kind of relative outlasted changes in potential of human behavior that cannot be traced back to age-related changes (Bower and Hilgard, 1981 ; Bredenkamp, 1998 ). Therefore, Schmutz et al. ( 2016 ) amended the taxonomy of team processes developed by Marks et al. ( 2001 ) and added learning processes as a fourth category of processes, which occur during transition and action phases and contribute to overall team effectiveness. Learning processes (see also Edmondson, 1999 ) include observation, e.g., observing own and other team members' actions such as the teammate's positioning of firewalls in order to protect houses in case of firefighting, feedback, like giving a teammate information about the wind direction for effective positioning of firewalls, and reflection, e.g., talking about procedures for firefighting or refilling water tanks, for example, within the team. Learning from success and failure and identifying future problems is crucial for the effectiveness of complex problem solving teams and therefore possibilities for learning based on repetitive cycles of joint action or episodes and reflection of team members' activities during action and transition phases should be used effectively (Edmondson, 1999 ; Marks et al., 2001 ). The processes of the idealized teamwork model are embedded into these learning processes (see Figure ​ Figure3 3 ).

The fulfillment of transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes contribute significantly to successful team performance in complex problem solving. For clustering these processes, transition and action processes could be seen as operational processes and interpersonal and learning process as support processes. When dealing with complex and dynamic situations teams have to face these team process demands more strongly than in non-complex situations. For example, goal specification and prioritization or strategy formulation, both aspects of transition processes, are strongly influenced by multiple goals, interconnectedness or dynamically and constantly changing conditions. The same is true for action processes, such as monitoring progress toward goals, team monitoring and backup behavior or coordination of interdependent actions. Interpersonal processes, such as conflict and affect management or confidence building enhance the demands put on team members compared to individuals working on complex problems. Interpersonal processes are essential for effective teamwork and need to be cultivated during episodes of team working, because breakdowns in confidence building or affect management can lead to coordination breakdowns or problems with monitoring or backing up teammates (Marks et al., 2001 ). Especially within complex situations aspects such as interdependence, delayed feedback, multiple goals and dynamic changes put high demands on interpersonal processes within teams. Learning processes, supporting interpersonal processes and the result of effective teamwork are e.g., observation of others' as well as own actions and receiving feedback by others or the system and are strongly influenced by situational characteristics such as non-transparency or delayed feedback concerning actions. It is assumed that amongst others team learning happens through repetitive cycles of joint action within the action phases and reflection of team members within the transition phases (Edmondson, 1999 ; Gabelica et al., 2014 ; Schmutz et al., 2016 ). The repetitive cycles help to generate SMM (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ; Mathieu et al., 2000 ), SSA (Endsley and Robertson, 2000 ) or transactive memory systems (Hollingshead et al., 2012 ) within the team.

Emergent states in complex team work and the role of collective orientation

IPO models propose that input variables and emergent states are able to influence team processes and therefore outcomes such as team performance positively. Emergent states represent team members' attitudes or motivations and are “properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 357). Both emergent states and interaction processes are relevant for team effectiveness (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ).

Emergent states refer to conditions that underlie and dynamically enable effective teamwork (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010 ) and can be differentiated from team process, which refers to interdependent actions of team members that transform inputs into outcomes based on activities directed toward task accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001 ). Emergent states mainly support the execution of behavioral processes (e.g., planning, coordination, backup behavior) during the action phase, meaning during episodes when members are engaged in acts that focus on task work and goal accomplishment. Emergent states like trust, cohesion and CO are “products of team experiences (including team processes) and become new inputs to subsequent processes and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 358). Trust between team members and cohesion within the team are emergent states that develop over time and only while experiencing teamwork in a specific team. CO is an emergent state that a team member brings along with him/her into the teamwork, is assumed to be more persistent than trust and cohesion, and can, but does not have to, be positively and negatively influenced by experiencing teamwork in a specific team for a while or by means of training (Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ). Thus, viewing emergent states on a continuum, trust and cohesion are assumed more fluctuating than CO, but CO is much more sensitive to change and direct experience than a stable trait such as a personality trait.

CO of team members is one of the teamwork-relevant competencies that facilitates team processes, such as collecting and sharing information between team members, and positively affects the success of teams, as people who are high in CO work with others in a goal-oriented manner, seek others' input and contribute to team outcomes (Driskell et al., 2010 ). CO is an emergent state, as it can be an input variable as well as a teamwork outcome. CO is context-dependent, becomes visible in reactions to situations and people, and can be influenced by experience (e.g., individual learning experiences with various types of teamwork) or knowledge or training (Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Bell, 2007 ). CO enhances team performance through activating transition and action processes such as coordination, evaluation and consideration of task inputs from other team members while performing a team task (Driskell and Salas, 1992 ; Salas et al., 2005 ). Collectively oriented people effectively use available resources in due consideration of the team's goals, participate actively and adapt teamwork processes adequately to the situation.

Driskell et al. ( 2010 ) and Hagemann ( 2017 ) provide a sound overview of the evidence of discriminant and convergent validity of CO compared to other teamwork-relevant constructs, such as cohesion, also an emergent state, or cooperative interdependence or preference for solitude. Studies analyzing collectively and non-collectively oriented persons' decision-making in an interdependent task demonstrated that teams with non-collectively oriented members performed poorly in problem solving and that members with CO judged inputs from teammates as more valuable and considered these inputs more frequently (Driskell and Salas, 1992 ). Eby and Dobbins ( 1997 ) also showed that CO results in increased coordination among team members, which may enhance team performance through information sharing, goal setting and strategizing (Salas et al., 2005 ). Driskell et al. ( 2010 ) and Hagemann ( 2017 ) analyzed CO in relation to team performance and showed that the effect of CO on team performance depends on the task type (see McGrath, 1984 ). Significant positive relationships between team members' CO and performance were found in relation to the task types choosing/decision making and negotiating (Driskell et al., 2010 ) respectively choosing/decision making (Hagemann, 2017 ). These kinds of tasks are characterized by much more interdependence than task types such as executing or generating tasks. As research shows that the positive influence of CO on team performance unfolds especially in interdependent teamwork contexts (Driskell et al., 2010 ), which require more team processes such as coordination patterns (Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Wageman, 1995 ) and necessitate mutual adjustments as well as frequent information integration within the team (Gibson, 1999 ; Stajkovic et al., 2009 ), CO might be vitally important for complex problem solving teams. Thus, CO as an emergent state of single team members might be a valuable resource for enhancing the team's performance when exposed to solving complex problems. Therefore, it will be of interest to analyze the influence of CO on team process demands such as coordination processes and performance within complex problem solving teams. We predict that the positive effect of CO on team performance is an indirect effect through coordination processes within the team, which are vitally important for teams working in intensive interdependent work contexts.

• Hypothesis 1: CO leads to a better coordination behavior, which in turn leads to a higher team performance.

As has been shown in team research that emergent states like trust and cohesion (see also Figure ​ Figure1) 1 ) affect team performance, these two constructs are analyzed in conjunction with CO concerning action processes, such as coordination behavior and team performance. Trust between team members supports information sharing and the willingness to accept feedback, and therefore positively influences teamwork processes (McAllister, 1995 ; Salas et al., 2005 ). Cohesion within a team facilitates motivational factors and group processes like coordination and enhances team performance (Beal et al., 2003 ; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ).

• Hypothesis 2: Trust shows a positive relationship with (a) action processes (team coordination) and with (b) team performance.
• Hypothesis 3: Cohesion shows a positive relationship with (a) action processes (team coordination) and with (b) team performance.

Materials and methods

In order to demonstrate the importance of team process demands for complex problem solving in teams, we used a computer-based microworld in a laboratory study. We analyzed the effectiveness of complex problem solving teams while considering the influence of input variables, like collective orientation of team members and trust and cohesion within the team, on action processes within teams, like coordination.

The microworld for investigating teams process demands

We used the simulation-based team task C 3 Fire (Granlund et al., 2001 ; Granlund and Johansson, 2004 ), which is described as an intensive interdependence team task for complex problem solving (Arthur et al., 2005 ). C 3 Fire is a command, control and communications simulation environment that allows teams' coordination and communication in complex and dynamic environments to be analyzed. C 3 Fire is a microworld, as important characteristics of the real world are transferred to a small and well-controlled simulation system. The task environment in C 3 Fire is complex, dynamic and opaque (see Table ​ Table1) 1 ) and therefore similar to the cognitive tasks people usually encounter in real-life settings, in and outside their work place (Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 ; Funke, 2001 ). Figure ​ Figure4 4 demonstrates how the complexity characteristics mentioned in Table ​ Table1 1 are realized in C 3 Fire. The screenshot represents the simulation manager's point of view, who is able to observe all units and actions and the scenario development. For more information about the units and scenarios, please (see the text below and the Supplementary Material). Complexity requires people to consider a number of facts. Because executed actions in C 3 Fire influence the ongoing process, the sequencing of actions is free and not stringent, such as a fixed (if X then Y) or parallel (if X then Y and Z) sequence (Ormerod et al., 1998 ). This can lead to stressful situations. Taking these characteristics of microworlds into consideration, team processes during complex problem solving can be analyzed within laboratories under controlled conditions. Simulated microworlds such as C 3 Fire allow the gap to be bridged between laboratory studies, which might show deficiencies regarding ecological validity, and field studies, which have been criticized due to their small amount of control (see Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 ).

Overview of complexity characteristics of microworlds in general and in C 3 Fire (cf. Funke, 2001 ).

Examples for the complexity characteristics in Table ​ Table1 1 represented within a simulation scenario in C 3 Fire.

In C 3 Fire, the teams' task is to coordinate their actions to extinguish a forest fire whilst protecting houses and saving lives. The team members' actions are interdependent. The simulation includes, e.g., forest fires, houses, tents, gas tanks, different kinds of vegetation and computer-simulated agents such as firefighting units (Granlund, 2003 ). It is possible, for example, that the direction of wind will change during firefighting and the time until different kinds of vegetation are burned down varies between those. In the present study, two simulation scenarios were developed for two-person teams and consisted of two firefighting units, one mobile water tank unit (responsible for re-filling the firefighting units' water tanks that contain a predefined amount of water) and one fire-break unit (a field defended with a fire-break cannot be ignited; the fire spreads around its ends). The two developed scenarios lasted for 15 min maximum. Each team member was responsible for two units in each scenario; person one for firefighting and water tank unit and person two for firefighting and fire-break unit. The user interface was a map system (40 × 40 square grid) with all relevant geographic information and positions of all symbols representing houses, water tank units and so on. All parts of the map with houses and vegetation were visible for the subjects, but not the fire itself or the other units; instead, the subjects were close to them with their own units (restricted visibility field; 3 × 3 square grid). The simulation was run on computers networked in a client-server configuration. The subjects used a chat system for communication that was logged. For each scenario, C 3 Fire creates a detailed log file containing all events that occurred over the course of the simulation. Examples of the C 3 Fire scenarios are provided in the Figures S1 – 3 and a short introduction into the microworld is given in the video. Detailed information regarding the scenario characteristics are given in Table S1 . From scenario one to two, the complexity and interdependence increased.

Participants

The study was conducted from Mai 2014 until March 2015. Undergraduate and graduate students ( N = 116) studying applied cognitive sciences participated in the study (68.1% female). Their mean age was 21.17 years ( SD = 3.11). Participants were assigned to 58 two-person teams, with team assignments being based on the pre-measured CO values (see procedure). They received 2 hourly credits as a trial subject and giveaways such as pencils and non-alcoholic canned drinks. The study was approved by the university's ethics committee in February 2014.

The study was conducted within a laboratory setting at a university department for business psychology. Prior to the experiment, the participants filled in the CO instrument online and gave written informed consent (see Figure ​ Figure5). 5 ). The median was calculated subsequently ( Md = 3.12; range: 1.69–4.06; scale range: 1–5) relating to the variable CO and two individuals with either high ( n = 58) or low ( n = 58) CO values were randomly matched as teammates. The matching process was random in part, as those two subjects were matched to form a team, whose preferred indicated time for participation in a specific week during data collection were identical. The participants were invited to the experimental study by e-mail 1–2 weeks after filling in the CO instrument. The study began with an introduction to the experimental procedure and the teams' task. The individuals received time to familiarize themselves with the simulation, received 20 min of training and completed two practice trials. After the training, participants answered a questionnaire collecting demographic data. Following this, a simulation scenario started and the participants had a maximum of 15 min to coordinate their actions to extinguish a forest fire whilst protecting houses and saving lives. After that, at measuring time T1, participants answered questionnaires assessing trust and cohesion within the team. Again, the teams worked on the following scenario 2 followed by a last round of questionnaires assessing trust and cohesion at T2.

Overview about the procedure and measures.

Demographic data such as age, sex, and study course were assessed after the training at the beginning of the experiment.

Collective Orientation was measured at an individual level with 16 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ) developed by the authors (Hagemann, 2017 ) based on the work of Driskell et al. ( 2010 ). The factorial structure concerning the German-language CO scale was proven prior to this study (χ 2 = 162.25, df = 92, p = 0.000, χ 2 /df = 1.76, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.040, CI = 0.030-0.051, SRMR = 0.043) and correlations for testing convergent and discriminant evidence of validity were satisfying. For example, CO correlated r = 0.09 ( p > 0.10) with cohesion, r = 0.34 ( p < 0.01) with cooperative interdependence and r = −0.28 ( p < 0.01) with preference for solitude (Hagemann, 2017 ). An example item is “ I find working on team projects to be very satisfying ”. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.81.

Trust in team members' integrity, trust in members' task abilities and trust in members' work-related attitudes (Geister et al., 2006 ) was measured with seven items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). An example item is “ I can trust that I will have no additional demands due to lack of motivation of my team member .” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.83 (T1) and 0.87 (T2).

Cohesion was measured with a six-item scale from Riordan and Weatherly ( 1999 ) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). An example item is “ In this team, there is a lot of team spirit among the members .” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.87 (T1) and 0.87 (T2).

Action process: coordination

Successful coordination requires mechanisms that serve to manage dependencies between the teams' activities and their resources. Coordination effectiveness was assessed based on the time the firefighting units spent without water in the field in relation to the total scenario time. This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of resource-oriented coordination, as it reflects an efficient performance regarding the water refill process in C 3 Fire, which requires coordinated actions between the two firefighting units and one water tank unit (Lafond et al., 2011 ). The underlying assumption is that a more successful coordination process leads to fewer delays in conducting the refill process. Coordination was calculated by a formula and values ranged between 0 and 1, with lower values indicating better coordination in the team (see Jobidon et al., 2012 ).

Team performance

This measure related to the teams' goals (limiting the number of burned out cells and saving as many houses/buildings as possible) and was quantified as the number of protected houses and the number of protected fields and bushes/trees in relation to the number of houses, fields, and bushes/trees, respectively, which would burn in a worst case scenario. This formula takes into account that teams needing more time for firefighting also have more burning cells and show a less successful performance than teams that are quick in firefighting. To determine the worst case scenario, both 15-min scenarios were run with no firefighting action taken. Thus, the particularities (e.g., how many houses would burn down if no action was taken) of each scenario were considered. Furthermore, the houses, bushes/trees and fields were weighted according to their differing importance, mirroring the teams' goals. Houses should be protected and were most important. Bushes/trees (middle importance) burn faster than fields (lowest importance) and foster the expansion of the fire. Values regarding team performance ranged between 0 and 7.99, with higher values indicating a better overall performance. Team performance was calculated as follows (see Table ​ Table2 2 ):

Explanation of formula for calculating team performance in both scenarios.

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and correlations for all study variables are provided in Table ​ Table3 3 .

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and correlations for all study variables.

Performance range from 0 to 7.99; Time without Water range from 0 to 1 (lower values indicate a more effective handling of water); CO range from 1 to 5 .

Team complex problem solving in scenario 1 correlated significantly negative with time without water in scenario 1, indicating that a high team performance is attended by the coordination behavior (as a team process). The same was true for scenario 2. In addition, time without water as an indicator for team coordination correlated significantly negative with the team members' CO, indicating that team members with high CO values experience less time without water in the microworld than teams with members with low CO values.

In order to analyze the influence of CO on team process demands such as coordination processes and thereby performance within complex problem solving teams we tested whether CO would show an indirect effect on team performance through the teams' coordination processes. To analyze this assumption, indirect effects in simple mediation models were estimated for both scenarios (see Preacher and Hayes, 2004 ). The mean for CO was 3.44 ( SD = 0.32) for teams with high CO values and it was 2.79 ( SD = 0.35) for teams with low CO values. The mean concerning team performance in scenario 1 for teams with high CO values was 6.30 ( SD = 1.64) and with low CO values 5.35 ( SD = 2.30). The mean concerning time without water (coordination behavior) for teams with high CO values was 0.16 ( SD = 0.08) and with low CO values 0.20 ( SD = 0.09). In scenario 2 the mean for team performance was 6.26 ( SD = 2.51) for teams with high CO values and it was 4.36 ( SD = 2.24) for teams with low CO values. The mean concerning time without water for teams with high CO values was 0.18 ( SD = 0.08) and with low CO values 0.25 ( SD = 0.11).

For analyzing indirect effects, CO was the independent variable, time without water the mediator and team performance the dependent variable. The findings indicated that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by time without water for scenario 1 (Table ​ (Table4) 4 ) and scenario 2 (Table ​ (Table5). 5 ). In scenario 1, CO had no direct effect on team performance ( b(YX) ), but CO significantly predicted time without water ( b(MX) ). A significant total effect ( b(YX) ) is not an assumption in the assessment of indirect effects, and therefore the non-significance of this relationship does not violate the analysis (see Preacher and Hayes, 2004 , p. 719). Furthermore, time without water significantly predicted team performance when controlling for CO ( b(YM.X) ), whereas the effect of CO on team performance was not significant when controlling for time without water ( b(YX.M) ). The indirect effect was 0.40 and significant when using normal distribution and estimated with the Sobel test ( z = 1.97, p < 0.05). The bootstrap procedure was applied to estimate the effect size not based on the assumption of normal distribution. As displayed in Table ​ Table4, 4 , the bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect was 0.41 and the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between 0.0084 and 0.9215 with a 95% confidence interval. As zero is not in the 95% confidence interval, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero at p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

Indirect Effect for Coordination and Team Performance in Scenario 1.

Y = Team Performance Scenario 1; X = Collective Orientation T0; M = Coordination (time without water in scenario 1); Number of Bootstrap Resamples 5000 .

Indirect Effect for Coordination and Team Performance in Scenario 2.

Y = Team Performance Scenario 2; X = Collective Orientation T0; M = Coordination (time without water in scenario 2); Number of Bootstrap Resamples 5000 .

Regarding scenario 2, CO had a direct effect on team performance ( b(YX) ) and on time without water ( b(MX) ). Again, time without water significantly predicted team performance when controlling for CO ( b(YM.X) ), whereas the effect of CO on team performance was not significant when controlling for time without water ( b(YX.M) ). This time, the indirect effect was 0.60 (Sobel test, z = 2.31, p < 0.05). As displayed in Table ​ Table5, 5 , the bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect was 0.61 and the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between 0.1876 and 1.1014 with a 95% confidence interval and between 0.0340 and 1.2578 with a 99% confidence interval. Because zero is not in the 99% confidence interval, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero at p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

The indirect effects for both scenarios are visualized in Figure ​ Figure6. 6 . Summing up, the results support hypothesis 1 and indicate that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by the teams' coordination behavior, an action process. That means, fulfilling team process demands affect the dynamic decision making quality of teams acting in complex situations and input variables such as CO influence the action processes within teams positively.

Indirect effect of collective orientation on team performance via coordination within the teams for scenario 1 and 2, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, numbers in italic represent results from scenario 2, non-italic numbers are from scenario 1.

Trust between team members assessed after scenario 1 (T1) and after scenario 2 (T2) did not show any significant correlation with the coordination behavior or with team complex problem solving in scenarios 1 and 2 (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). Thus, hypotheses 2a and 2b are not supported. Cohesion at T1 showed no significant relationship with team performance in both scenarios, one significant negative correlation ( r = −0.22, p < 0.05) with the coordination behavior in scenario 1 and no correlation with the coordination behavior in scenario 2. Cohesion at T2 did not show any significant correlation with the coordination behavior or with team performance in both scenarios. Thus, hypotheses 3a and 3b could also not be supported. Furthermore, the results showed no significant relations between CO and trust and cohesion. The correlations between trust and cohesion ranged between r = 0.39 and r = 0.51 ( p < 0.01).

The purpose of our paper was first to give a sound theoretical overview and to combine theoretical approaches about team competencies and team process demands in collaborative complex problem solving and second to demonstrate the importance of selected team competencies and processes on team performance in complex problem solving by means of results from a laboratory study. We introduced the model of an idealized teamwork process that complex problem solving team pass through and integrated the relevant teamwork skills for interdependently working teams into it. Moreover, we highlighted the episodic aspect concerning complex problem solving in teams and combined the well-known transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes of teamwork with the idealized teamwork process model. Finally, we investigated the influence of trust, cohesion, and CO on action processes, such as coordination behavior of complex problem solving teams and on team performance.

Regarding hypothesis 1, studies have indicated that teams whose members have high CO values are more successful in their coordination processes and task accomplishment (Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ; Hagemann, 2017 ), which may enhance team performance through considering task inputs from other team members, information sharing and strategizing (Salas et al., 2005 ). Thus, we had a close look on CO as an emergent state in the present study, because emergent states support the execution of behavioral processes. In order to analyze this indirect effect of CO on team performance via coordination processes, we used the time, which firefighters spent without water in a scenario, as an indicator for high-quality coordination within the team. A small amount of time without water represents sharing information and resources between team members in a reciprocal manner, which are essential qualities of effective coordination (Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014 ). One of the two team members was in charge of the mobile water tank unit and therefore responsible for filling up the water tanks of his/her own firefighting unit and that of the other team member on time. In order to avoid running out of water for firefighting, the team members had to exchange information about, for example, their firefighting units' current and future positions in the field, their water levels, their strategies for extinguishing one or two fires, and the water tank unit's current and future position in the field. The simple mediation models showed that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by time without water, supporting hypothesis 1. Thus, CO facilitates high-quality coordination within complex problem solving teams and this in turn influences decision-making and team performance positively (cf. Figure ​ Figure1). 1 ). These results support previous findings concerning the relationships between emergent states, such as CO, and the team process, such as action processes like coordination (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ) and between the team process and the team performance (Stevens and Campion, 1994 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ).

Hypotheses 2 and 3 analyzed the relationships between trust and cohesion and coordination and team performance. Because no correlations between trust and cohesion and the coordination behavior and team complex problem solving existed, further analyses, like mediation analyses, were unnecessary. In contrast to other studies (McAllister, 1995 ; Beal et al., 2003 ; Salas et al., 2005 ; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ), the present study was not able to detect effects of trust and cohesion on team processes, like action processes, or on team performance. This can be attributed to the restricted sample composition or the rather small sample size. Nevertheless, effect sizes were small to medium, so that they would have become significant with an increased sample sizes. The prerequisite, mentioned by the authors, that interdependence of the teamwork is important for identifying those effects, was given in the present study. Therefore, this aspect could not have been the reason for finding no effects concerning trust and cohesion. Trust and cohesion within the teams developed during working on the simulation scenarios while fighting fires, showed significant correlations with each other, and were unrelated to CO, which showed an effect on the coordination behavior and the team performance indeed. The results seem to implicate, that the influence of CO on action processes and team performance might be much more stronger than those of trust and cohesion. If these results can be replicated should be analyzed in future studies.

As the interdependent complex problem-solving task was a computer-based simulation, the results might have been affected by the participants' attitudes to using a computer. For example, computer affinity seems to be able to minimize potential fear of working with a simulation environment and might therefore, be able to contribute to successful performance in a computer-based team task. Although computers and other electronic devices are pervasive in present-day life, computer aversion has to be considered in future studies within complex problem-solving research when applying computer-based simulation team tasks. As all of the participants were studying applied cognitive science, which is a mix of psychology and computer science, this problem might not have been influenced the present results. However, the specific composition of the sample reduces the external validity of the study and the generalizability of the results. A further limitation is the small sample size, so that moderate to small effects are difficult to detect.

Furthermore, laboratory research of teamwork might have certain limitations. Teamwork as demonstrated in this study fails to account for the fact that teams are not simple, static and isolated entities (McGrath et al., 2000 ). The validity of the results could be reduced insofar as the complex relationships in teams were not represented, the teamwork context was not considered, not all teammates and teams were comparable, and the characteristic as a dynamic system with a team history and future was not given in the present study. This could be a possible explanation why no effects of trust and cohesion were found in the present study. Maybe, the teams need more time working together on the simulation scenarios in order to show that trust and cohesion influence the coordination with the team and the team performance. Furthermore, Bell ( 2007 ) demonstrated in her meta-analysis that the relationship between team members' attitudes and the team's performance was proven more strongly in the field compared to the laboratory. In consideration of this fact, the findings of the present study concerning CO are remarkable and the simulation based microworld C3Fire (Granlund et al., 2001 ; Granlund, 2003 ) seems to be appropriate for analyzing complex problem solving in interdependently working teams.

An asset of the present study is, that the teams' action processes, the coordination performance, was assessed objectively based on logged data and was not a subjective measure, as is often the case in group and team research studies (cf. Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Antoni and Hertel, 2009 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014 ). As coordination was the mediator in the analysis, this objective measurement supports the validity of the results.

As no transition processes such as mission analysis, formulation, and planning (Prince and Salas, 1993 ), goal specification (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ), and strategy formulation (Prince and Salas, 1993 ; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ) as well as action processes such as monitoring progress toward goals (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ) and systems monitoring (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ) were analyzed within the present study, future studies should collect data concerning these processes in order to show their importance on performance within complex problem solving teams. Because these processes are difficult to observe, subjective measurements are needed, for example asking the participants after each scenario how they have prioritized various tasks, if and when they have changed their strategy concerning protecting houses or fighting fires, and on which data within the scenarios they focused for collecting information for goal and systems monitoring. Another possibility could be using eye-tracking methods in order to collect data about collecting information for monitoring progress toward goals, e.g., collecting information how many cells are still burning, and systems monitoring, e.g., tracking team resources like water for firefighting.

CO is an emergent state and emergent states can be influenced by experience or learning, for example (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ). Learning processes (Edmondson, 1999 ), that Schmutz et al. ( 2016 ) added to the taxonomy of team processes developed by Marks et al. ( 2001 ) and which occur during transition and action phases and contribute to team effectiveness include e.g., feedback . Feedback can be useful for team learning when team learning is seen as a form of information processing (Hinsz et al., 1997 ). Because CO supports action processes, such as coordination and it can be influenced by learning, learning opportunities, such as feedback, seem to be important for successful task accomplishment and for supporting teams in handling complex situations or problems. If the team is temporarily and interpersonally unstable, as it is the case for most of the disaster or crisis management teams dealing with complex problems, there might be less opportunities for generating shared mental models by experiencing repetitive cycles of joint action (cf. Figure ​ Figure2) 2 ) and strategies such as cross training (Salas et al., 2007 ) or feedback might become more and more important for successful complex problem solving in teams. Thus, for future research it would be of interest to analyze what kind of feedback is able to influence CO positively and therefore is able to enhance coordination and performance within complex problem-solving teams.

Depending on the type of feedback, different main points will be focused during the feedback (see Gabelica et al., 2012 ). Feedback can be differentiated into performance and process feedback. Process feedback can be further divided into task-related and interpersonal feedback. Besides these aspects, feedback can be given on a team-level or an individual-level. Combinations of the various kinds of feedback are possible and are analyzed in research concerning their influence on e.g., self- and team-regulatory processes and team performance (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ; Hinsz et al., 1997 ; Jung and Sosik, 2003 ; Gabelica et al., 2012 ). For future studies it would be relevant to analyze, whether it is possible to positively influence the CO of team members and therefore action processes such as coordination and team performance or not. A focus could be on the learning processes, especially on feedback, and its influence on CO in complex problem solving teams. So far, no studies exist that analyzed the relationship between feedback and a change in CO, even though researchers already discuss the possibility that team-level process feedback shifts attention processes on team actions and team learning (McLeod et al., 1992 ; Hinsz et al., 1997 ). These results would be very helpful for training programs for fire service or police or medical teams working in complex environments and solving problems collaboratively, in order to support their team working and their performance.

In summary, the idealized teamwork process model is in combination with the transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes a good framework for analyzing the impact of teamwork competencies and teamwork processes in detail on team performance in complex environments. Overall, the framework offers further possibilities for investigating the influence of teamwork competencies on diverse processes and teamwork outcomes in complex problem solving teams than demonstrated here. The results of our study provide evidence of how CO influences complex problem solving teams and their performance. Accordingly, future researchers and practitioners would be well advised to find interventions how to influence CO and support interdependently working teams.

Ethics statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Ethical guidelines of the German Association of Psychology, Ethics committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Ethics committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science.

Author contributions

VH and AK were responsible for the conception of the work and the study design. VH analyzed and interpreted the collected data. VH and AK drafted the manuscript. They approved it for publication and act as guarantors for the overall content.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730/full#supplementary-material

• Antoni C., Hertel G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: implications for different types of teamwork . Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 18 , 253–266. 10.1080/13594320802095502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arthur W., Edwards B., Bell S., Villado A., Bennet W. (2005). Team task analysis: identifying tasks and jobs that are team based . Hum. Factors 47 , 654–669. 10.1518/001872005774860087 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Badke-Schaub P. (2008). Teamarbeit und Teamführung: Erfolgsfaktoren und sicheres Handeln. [Teamwork and Team leadership: Factors of success and reliable action] , in Führung und Teamarbeit in kritischen Situationen [Leadership and teamwork in critical situations] eds Buerschaper C., Starke S. (Frankfurt: Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft; ), 3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beal D. J., Cohen R. R., Burke M. J., McLendon C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations . J. Appl. Psychol. 88 , 989–1004. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis . J. Appl. Psychol. 92 , 595–615. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bower G. H., Hilgard E. R. (1981). Theories of Learning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bredenkamp J. (1998). Lernen, Erinnern, Vergessen [Learning, Remembering, Forgetting]. München: C.H. Beck. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehmer B. (1992). Dynamic decision-making: human control of complex systems . Acta Psychol. 81 , 211–241. 10.1016/0001-6918(92)90019-A [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehmer B., Dörner D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study . Comput. Hum. Behav. 9 , 171–184. 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campion M. A., Medsker G. J., Higgs C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups . Pers. Psychol. 46 , 823–850. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cannon-Bowers J. A., Salas E., Converse S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making , in Individual and Group Decision Making , ed Castellan N. J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 221–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cannon-Bowers J. A., Tannenbaum S. I., Salas E., Volpe C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements , in Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , eds Guzzo R. A., E. Salas and Associates (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 333–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeChurch L. A., Mesmer-Magnus J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis . J. Appl. Psychol. 95 , 32–53. 10.1037/a0017328 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dierdorff E. C., Bell S. T., Belohlav J. A. (2011). The “power of we”: effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time . J. Appl. Psychol. 96 , 247–262. 10.1037/a0020929 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1989/2003). Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen [The logic of failure. Strategic thinking in complex situations] 11th Edn . Reinbeck: rororo. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Kreuzig H. W., Reither F., Stäudel T. (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern; Stuttgart; Wien: Verlag Hans Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Driskell J. E., Salas E. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance . Hum. Factors 34 , 277–288. 10.1177/001872089203400303 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Driskell J., Salas E., Hughes S. (2010). Collective orientation and team performance: development of an individual differences measure . Hum. Factors 52 , 316–328. 10.1177/0018720809359522 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eby L. T., Dobbins G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis . J. Organ. Behav. 18 , 275–295. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams . Adm. Sci. Q. 44 , 350–383. 10.2307/2666999 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellington J. K., Dierdorff E. C. (2014). Individual learning in team training: self-regulation and team context effects . Small Group Res. 45 , 37–67. 10.1177/1046496413511670 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Endsley M. R. (1999). Situation Awareness in Aviation Systems , in Handbook of Aviation Human Factors , eds Garland D. J., Wise J. A., Hopkin V. D. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 257–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Endsley M. R., Robertson M. M. (2000). Training for Situation Awareness in Individuals and Teams , in Situation awareness Analysis and Measurement , eds Endsley M. R., Garland D. J. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 349–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiore S. M., Rosen M. A., Smith-Jentsch K. A., Salas E., Letsky M., Warner N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts . Hum. Factors 52 , 203–224. 10.1177/0018720810369807 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleishman E. A., Zaccaro S. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance funtions , in Teams: Their Training and Performance , eds Swezey R. W., Salas E. (Norwood, NJ: Ables; ), 31–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flin R., O'Connor P., Crichton M. (2008). Safety at the Sharp End. Aldershot: Ashgate. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1995). Experimental research on complex problem solving , in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 243–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2001). Daynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement . Think. Reason. 7 , 69–89. 10.1080/13546780042000046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2012). Complex Problem Solving , in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning ed Seel N. M. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 682–685. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabelica C., van den Bossche P., de Maeyer S., Segers M., Gijselaers W. (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change . Learn. Instruct. 34 , 86–96. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabelica C., Van den Bossche P., Segers M., Gijselaers W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: a review . Educ. Res. Rev. 7 , 123–144. 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geister S., Konradt U., Hertel G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams . Small Group Res. 37 , 459–489. 10.1177/1046496406292337 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures . Acad. Manag. J. 42 , 138–152. 10.2307/257089 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granlund R. (2003). Monitoring experiences from command and control research with the C 3 Fire microworld . Cogn. Technol. Work 5 , 183–190. 10.1007/s10111-003-0129-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granlund R., Johansson B. (2004). Monitoring distributed collaboration in the C 3 Fire Microworld , in Scaled Worlds: Development, Validation and Applications , eds Schiflett G., Elliot L. R., Salas E., Coovert M. D. (Aldershot: Ashgate; ), 37–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Granlund R., Johansson B., Persson M. (2001). C3Fire a micro-world for collaboration training and investigations in the ROLF environment , in Proceedings of 42nd Conference on Simulation and Modeling: Simulation in Theory and Practice (Porsgrunn: ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman J. R. (1987). The design of work teams , in Handbook of Organizational Behavior ed Lorsch J. W. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; ), 315–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V. (2011). Trainingsentwicklung für High Responsibility Teams [Training development for High Responsibility Teams] . Lengerich: Pabst Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V. (2017). Development of a German-language questionnaire to measure collective orientation as an individual attitude . Swiss J. Psychol. 76 , 91–105. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000198 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V., Kluge A., Ritzmann S. (2011). High responsibility teams - Eine systematische Analyse von Teamarbeitskontexten für einen effektiven Kompetenzerwerb [A systematic analysis of teamwork contexts for effective competence acquisition] . Psychologie des Alltagshandelns 4 , 22–42. Available online at: http://www.allgemeine-psychologie.info/cms/images/stories/allgpsy_journal/Vol%204%20No%201/hagemann_kluge_ritzmann.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V., Kluge A., Ritzmann S. (2012). Flexibility under complexity: work contexts, task profiles and team processes of high responsibility teams . Empl. Relat. 34 , 322–338. 10.1108/01425451211217734 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertel G., Konradt U., Orlikowski B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams . Euro. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 13 , 1–28. 10.1080/13594320344000228 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinsz V., Tindale R., Vollrath D. (1997). The emerging concept of groups as information processors . Psychol. Bull. 121 , 43–64. 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollingshead A. B., Gupta N., Yoon K., Brandon D. (2012). Transactive memory theory and teams: past, present, and future , in Theories of Team Cognition , eds Salas E., Fiore S. M., Letsky M. (New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; ), 421–455. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilgen D. R., Hollenbeck J. R., Johnson M., Jundt D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56 , 517–543. 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jobidon M.-E., Muller-Gass A., Duncan M., Blais A.-R. (2012). The enhance of mental models and its impact on teamwork . Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 56 , 1703–1707. 10.1177/1071181312561341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung D. I., Sosik J. J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy . Group Organ. Manage. 28 , 366–391. 10.1177/1059601102250821 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluge A. (2014). The Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills for Taskwork and Teamwork to Control Complex Technical Systems: A Cognitive and Macroergonomics Perspective . Dordrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluge A., Hagemann V., Ritzmann S. (2014). Military crew resource management – Das Streben nach der bestmöglichen Teamarbeit [Striving for the best of teamwork] , in Psychologie für Einsatz und Notfall [Psychology for mission and emergency] , eds Kreim G., Bruns S., Völker B. (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe in der Mönch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; ), 141–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluge A., Sauer J., Schüler K., Burkolter D. (2009). Designing training for process control simulators: a review of empirical findings and current practices, theoretical issues in ergonomics Science 10 , 489–509. 10.1080/14639220902982192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozlowski S. W. J., Ilgen D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams . Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7 , 77–124. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lafond D., Jobidon M.-E., Aubé C., Tremblay S. (2011). Evidence of structure- specific teamwork requirements and implications for team design . Small Group Res. 42 , 507–535. 10.1177/1046496410397617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks M. A., Mathieu J. E., Zaccaro S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes . Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 , 356–376. 10.2307/259182 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathieu J. E., Heffner T. S., Goodwin G. F., Salas E., Cannon-Bowers J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance . J. Appl. Psychol. 85 , 273–283. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAllister D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations . Acad. Manag. J. 38 , 24–59. 10.2307/256727 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrath J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrath J. E., Arrow H., Berdahl J. L. (2000). The study of groups: past, present, and future . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4 , 95–105. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeod P. L., Liker J. K., Lobel S. A. (1992). Process feedback in task groups: an application of goal setting . J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 28 , 15–41. 10.1177/0021886392281003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan B. B., Salas E., Glickman A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation . J. Gen. Psychol. 120 , 277–291. 10.1080/00221309.1993.9711148 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ormerod T. C., Richardson J., Shepherd A. (1998). Enhancing the usability of a task analysis method: a notation and environment for requirements specification . Ergonomics 41 , 1642–1663. 10.1080/001401398186117 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preacher K., Hayes A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models . Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36 , 717–731. 10.3758/BF03206553 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prince C., Salas E. (1993). Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew , in Cockpit Resource Management , eds Wiener E. L., Kanki B. G., Helmreich R. L. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 337–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prussia G. E., Kinicki A. J. (1996). A motivation investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory . J. Appl. Psychol. 81 , 187–198. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riordan C. M., Weatherly E. W. (1999). Defining and measuring employees‘identification with their work groups . Educ. Psychol. Meas. 59 , 310–324. 10.1177/00131649921969866 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth E. M., Woods D. D. (1988). Aiding human performance i: cognitive analysis . Trav. Hum. 51 , 39–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas E., Cooke N. J., Rosen M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and developments . Hum. Factors 50 , 540–547. 10.1518/001872008X288457 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas E., Nichols D. R., Driskell J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams . Small Group Res. 38 , 471–488. 10.1177/1046496407304332 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas E., Sims D., Burke S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res. 36 , 555–599. 10.1177/1046496405277134 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmutz J., Welp A., Kolbe M. (2016). Teamwork in healtcare organizations , in Management Innovations for Health Care Organizations , eds Örtenblad A., Löfström C. A., Sheaff R. (New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis; ), 359–377. [ Google Scholar ]
• Serfaty D., Entin E. E., Johnston J. H. (1998). Team coordination training , in Making Decisions Under Stress , eds Cannon-Bowers J. A., Salas E. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 221–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shea G. P., Guzzo R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: what really matters? Sloan Manage. Rev. 28 , 25–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith-Jentsch K. A., Baker D. P., Salas E., Cannon-Bowers J. A. (2001). Uncovering differences in team competency requirements: The case of air traffic control teams , in Improving Teamwork in Organizations. Applications of Resource Management Training , eds Salas E., Bowers C. A., Edens E. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 31–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stajkovic A. D., Lee D., Nyberg A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model . J. Appl. Psychol. 94 , 814–828. 10.1037/a0015659 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens M. J., Campion M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management . J. Manage. 20 , 503–530. 10.1177/014920639402000210 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulich E. (1995). Gestaltung von Arbeitstätigkeiten [Designing job tasks] , in Lehrbuch Organisationspsychologie [Schoolbook Organizational Psychology] , ed Schuler H. (Bern: Huber; ), 189–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van de Ven A. H., Delbecq A. L., Koenig R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes with organizations . Am. Sociol. Rev. 41 , 322–338. 10.2307/2094477 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wageman R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness . Adm. Sci. Q. 40 , 145–180. 10.2307/2393703 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waller M. J., Gupta N., Giambatista R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance . Manage. Sci. 50 , 1534–1544. 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson K. A., Salas E., Andrews D. H. (2010). Preventing errors in the heat of the battle: formal and informal learning strategies to prevent teamwork breakdowns , in Human Factors Issues in Combat Identification , eds Andrews D. H., Herz R. P., Wolf M. B. (Aldershot: Ashgate; ), 1–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zsambok C. E. (1997). Naturalistic decision making: where are we now? , in Naturalistic Decision Making , eds Zsambok C. E., Klein G. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]

How To The Lead Problem Solving Process In Teams

Published on July 21, 2020. Updated on December 14th, 2023.

Knowledge work is about solving problems. High performing teams, and their leaders, are tasked with tapping into their creative thinking and generating new and valuable solutions to various problems faced by the company and its customers. We know that. But unfortunately, when you ask most teams and team leaders what they do to solve problems, they have some pretty generic answers. They “put their heads” together or they “brainstorm.” Whatever method they use, it most often means calling people into a conference room and throwing out ideas as quickly as possible.

And despite being widely employed, that rarely works—at least by itself.

When you study the methods of some of the world’s most prolifically creative companies (and when you examine the research on creative thinking) you discover something pretty quickly. Creative thinking isn’t a meeting; it’s a process. Brainstorming, or any other method of rapid idea generation, is a part of that process, but it’s not the entire process. In fact, the real work begins many steps beforehand. It’s not one meeting; it’s three.

Research suggests that the best decisions are made when you break up meetings into smaller meetings held separately. In a classic study in social psychology, researchers recruited participants for a decision-making meeting with a twist. After the groups had come to a decision, the researchers told participants to hold the meeting again, and make a decision again. The groups were not given any feedback on their first decision or given any instructions about needing to come a different decision than the first meeting. But most of the groups did. Moreover, the second decision was typically much more inclusive of ideas discussed and overall more creative than the first decision reached. One possible explanation for this is a quirk of human behavior to chase consensus. When we’re in meetings, we tend to rally too quickly around the first idea that seems to gain momentum—partly because we want to get everyone to agree and partly because we just want to get out of the conference room. Meeting participants sacrificed genuine debate and deliberation for quick consensus. Breaking up a large meeting into several smaller ones with a different goal helps prevent that harmful tradeoff.

So, when you need to think creatively with your team to solve a problem, don’t schedule one long meeting. Schedule three over the course of several days: a problem meeting, an idea meeting, and a decision meeting.

Start With A Problem Meeting

The purpose of the problem meeting is exactly what it sounds like: to discuss the problem. Often when we first encounter a situation, we’re actually looking at the symptom of a different, underlying problem. The goal of this first meeting should be to step back and determine what problem, if solved, will have the most benefit. In doing so, we’re looking to recruit as many people who might know something about the issue as we can and making sure they are given time to share their perspective. Tactics or methods like Sakichi Toyoda’s “ Five Why’s ” method or Kaoru Ishikawa’s “ Fishbone ” diagram can be useful here. But what’s most important is that this meeting stay focused on discussing potential causes of the problem, as well as constraints. Yes. Constraints. While we might associate creative thinking with boundless ideas and wandering minds, there’s a wealth of research suggesting that constraints actually enhance our creativity. Moreover, constraints will provide the criteria by which solutions will later be judged.  Instead of thinking “outside of the box,” you want to use this meeting to decide which box to think inside of. The best version of that box is a simple question: “How might we __________?” with the blank being the root problem you’ve discovered. Such as “How might we increase sales without increasing marketing expenses?” or “How might we reduce miscommunication across departments?” Asking as an opened ended question reminds people that multiple possibilities exist—our job isn’t to find the “right” answer, it’s to find all of them and then choose the best one.

Then Call An Idea Meeting

Once the problem is explored and the question written, we can call for the idea meeting. This is the meeting that most resembles brainstorming (and we have some tips for how to facilitate this meeting in the next section). But before you start spouting off ideas, make sure you’ve got the right people in this virtual room as well. Depending on the problem, this may or may not be the same attendee list as the problem meeting. In the problem meeting, we asked “Who knows something about this issue?” But now, we also need to make sure we’re including a much more diverse group of participants. In addition to adding new attendees because you’ve discovered the root cause and noticed it affects more people than you first thought, you’ll also want to ask, “Who is typically excluded from these conversations?” and invite anyone who is often excluded for the wrong reasons. Once it’s time for the meeting, open with a brief round of introductions. If you have the right attendee list, it’s almost a guarantee that you’ll have people from different teams on the call. So, make sure everyone is familiar with the background and relevant experience of everyone else. Then, briefly outline the problem you discovered, its constraints, the problem question (“How might we __________?”), and the ground rules for discussion. Depending on your team and the problem, those ground rules might change. But at a minimum you should have guidelines in place that encourage everyone to speak up, to minimize distractions, and to keep any criticisms focused on ideas. The end goal of the idea meeting isn’t to arrive at a final solution (that’s what the next meeting is for). But, once you’ve got a large list of ideas, it might be worth spending some time narrowing down or combining options. To make the decision meeting easier and better.

End With A Decision Meeting

The final meeting, the decision meeting, doesn’t need to be separate meeting held on a different day—unless of course the attendee list between the two meetings would change dramatically. But there should be some kind of break (bio break, lunch break, nature break) between this and the idea meeting. Doing so provides the mental reset needed in the avoid rallying around whatever ideas might have gained momentum during the idea meeting and provides everyone with a fresh perspective on the list of available options. In addition, taking even a short break provides many people the opportunity to excuse themselves if they were part of the idea meeting, but don’t need to be around for the decision itself. Rather than jumping right into the list of ideas, start the decision meeting by reviewing the problem question and the constraints or any other criteria that will be used to judge an idea’s merit. If there’s a large list of options, consider an initial round of voting just to eliminate ideas that don’t meet the criteria—but avoid using that voting round as a way to “rank” the remaining ideas. If the list isn’t too large, then move right into discussing each idea in turn. Don’t just talk about strengths and weaknesses of the idea, but make sure everyone considers what the process of implementing the idea looks like as well. My favorite question to ask of each idea is “What would have to be true for this idea to work?” to make sure everyone considers the environment around them when deciding on an idea’s novelty and usefulness.

Often by the time each idea is discussed in turn, the group has already found one option or combination of options stands out. If not, that’s okay. Continue the discussion with the goal of continuing to eliminate ideas. If you can’t reach consensus, that’s okay too. In fact, it’s often a better idea to seek commitment rather than consensus. If a few people still disagree with a decision when it’s made, that’s a good sign that you’ve actually examined all relevant issues. If they don’t, it’s possible the consensus is actually the result of a blind spot or echo chamber effect and not the brilliance of the idea. But you do need to know everyone who is affected by the decision leaves the meeting feeling heard and willing to implement the idea (even if it still wasn’t their first choice).

Taken together, these three meetings ensure you’ve fully examined a problem, generated multiple solutions, and arrived at one of the best possible solutions. It might seem like a logistical hassle to schedule three different meetings with three different attendee lists. It is a more work than just jumping on a video call and spit balling ideas. But in the long-term, it will likely save time and effort compared to spit balling—since the most likely idea generated in those meetings is usually just “we need to discuss this further, let’s schedule a follow-up meeting.”

About the author

David Burkus is an organizational psychologist, keynote speaker, and bestselling author of five books on leadership and teamwork.

2 thoughts on “How To The Lead Problem Solving Process In Teams”

Thanks, David. To “suspend” decisions in early conversations usually keeps the first idea from becoming the only idea.

Thanks Bob!

Comments are closed.

Recommended Reading

How does diversity affect teamwork, how to motivate your team as a leader, 5 challenges all teams face, get free leadership training.

Subscribe to David’s email newsletter and never miss another leadership training or resource. It’s free...and fun to read (we promise).

Campanile accompanies global teams and leaders to their next level of intercultural leadership excellence.

Campanile Programmes

Many organizations have invested time, energy and money in corporate learning, and now they are looking for the next step. Supervisors are too busy to keep the team accountable for using news skills. Specialists struggle to see the connection between training and daily problem-solving. HR or Corporate Learning departments are often caught in the middle.

Problem Solving Teams

Problem Solving Teams is a programme that brings key line managers together to solve real-time project problems with the help of a facilitator. It is the missing link between learning and doing.

What does a typical programme look like?

This programme brings teams together to find and implement solutions to real project-related problems. We start by listening to the client's description of their business, the objectives and performance requirements facing the teams in question, their achievements and challenges. Before we set the specific goals for the programme, we conduct individual assessment using personality or behavioural tools, chosen either by the client or by Campanile. Finally, we choose the team(s) participating in the programme and set clear goals for the subsequent problem solving sessions.

Problem Solving Teams consists of a workshop, or a series of workshops, where an existing team, such as management team or project team, finds solutions to specific work-related problems and creates an implementation plan. Problems can range from the technical to HR or leadership-related ones. A 4-step problem-solving process guides teams through defining and brainstorming the problem, agreeing on a solution and an implementation plan.  Each activity builds on the results of the previous one, and can be adjusted accordingly.

Without proper follow-up, the implementation plan that resulted from workshops becomes a distant memory after six months. We know how busy people are, and therefore we design our projects realistically. From simple reminders to refresher workshops, we offer a dozen ways to turn a single programme into effective and sustainable problem solving. We also work together with our clients to ensure that levels, units and teams within the company support each other's improvement.

The Problem Solving Teams Method

Learn how to:

A detailed analysis of strategy and specific goals

A comprehensive problem-solving methodology of 4 phases

The selection and analysis of problems at current projects

Guidance and feedback from the facilitator to apply PST to the problem

Action points for strategy, processes, client relations and teamwork

Following up on decisions at real project work

Evaluating progress and making improvements at following sessions

Participants share the process with their teams afterwards

What makes Problem Solving Teams effective?

Participants are selected from different teams, levels or even companies.

All d ecisions are made in teams , improving teamwork.

Participants receive feedback on their methods from a skilled facilitator.

The programme solves existing problems using new methods . 

We work together with the client to define the outcome of the programme

We  customise the content of the programme to industry and culture

Participants solve current problems related to sales, production, HR , etc.

We share the experience of previous programmes with participants

The programme follows the reality of company strategy and resources

Our philosophy at Campanile is never to deliver the same programme twice. For customized solutions tailored to your industry and specific needs, contact us .

Previous problem solving workshops

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators 
using SessionLab.

Recommended Articles

A step-by-step guide to planning a workshop, how to create an unforgettable training session in 8 simple steps, 47 useful online tools for workshop planning and meeting facilitation.

All teams and organizations encounter challenges as they grow. There are problems that might occur for teams when it comes to miscommunication or resolving business-critical issues . You may face challenges around growth , design , user engagement, and even team culture and happiness. In short, problem-solving techniques should be part of every team’s skillset.

Problem-solving methods are primarily designed to help a group or team through a process of first identifying problems and challenges , ideating possible solutions , and then evaluating the most suitable .

Finding effective solutions to complex problems isn’t easy, but by using the right process and techniques, you can help your team be more efficient in the process.

So how do you develop strategies that are engaging, and empower your team to solve problems effectively?

In this blog post, we share a series of problem-solving tools you can use in your next workshop or team meeting. You’ll also find some tips for facilitating the process and how to enable others to solve complex problems.

Let’s get started! 

How do you identify problems?

How do you identify the right solution.

• Tips for more effective problem-solving

Complete problem-solving methods

• Problem-solving techniques to identify and analyze problems
• Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Closing activities for a problem-solving process.

Before you can move towards finding the right solution for a given problem, you first need to identify and define the problem you wish to solve. 

Here, you want to clearly articulate what the problem is and allow your group to do the same. Remember that everyone in a group is likely to have differing perspectives and alignment is necessary in order to help the group move forward. 

Identifying a problem accurately also requires that all members of a group are able to contribute their views in an open and safe manner. It can be scary for people to stand up and contribute, especially if the problems or challenges are emotive or personal in nature. Be sure to try and create a psychologically safe space for these kinds of discussions.

Remember that problem analysis and further discussion are also important. Not taking the time to fully analyze and discuss a challenge can result in the development of solutions that are not fit for purpose or do not address the underlying issue.

Successfully identifying and then analyzing a problem means facilitating a group through activities designed to help them clearly and honestly articulate their thoughts and produce usable insight.

With this data, you might then produce a problem statement that clearly describes the problem you wish to be addressed and also state the goal of any process you undertake to tackle this issue.  

Finding solutions is the end goal of any process. Complex organizational challenges can only be solved with an appropriate solution but discovering them requires using the right problem-solving tool.

After you’ve explored a problem and discussed ideas, you need to help a team discuss and choose the right solution. Consensus tools and methods such as those below help a group explore possible solutions before then voting for the best. They’re a great way to tap into the collective intelligence of the group for great results!

Remember that the process is often iterative. Great problem solvers often roadtest a viable solution in a measured way to see what works too. While you might not get the right solution on your first try, the methods below help teams land on the most likely to succeed solution while also holding space for improvement.

Every effective problem solving process begins with an agenda . A well-structured workshop is one of the best methods for successfully guiding a group from exploring a problem to implementing a solution.

In SessionLab, it’s easy to go from an idea to a complete agenda . Start by dragging and dropping your core problem solving activities into place . Add timings, breaks and necessary materials before sharing your agenda with your colleagues.

The resulting agenda will be your guide to an effective and productive problem solving session that will also help you stay organized on the day!

Tips for more effective problem solving

Problem-solving activities are only one part of the puzzle. While a great method can help unlock your team’s ability to solve problems, without a thoughtful approach and strong facilitation the solutions may not be fit for purpose.

Let’s take a look at some problem-solving tips you can apply to any process to help it be a success!

Clearly define the problem

Jumping straight to solutions can be tempting, though without first clearly articulating a problem, the solution might not be the right one. Many of the problem-solving activities below include sections where the problem is explored and clearly defined before moving on.

This is a vital part of the problem-solving process and taking the time to fully define an issue can save time and effort later. A clear definition helps identify irrelevant information and it also ensures that your team sets off on the right track.

Don’t jump to conclusions

It’s easy for groups to exhibit cognitive bias or have preconceived ideas about both problems and potential solutions. Be sure to back up any problem statements or potential solutions with facts, research, and adequate forethought.

The best techniques ask participants to be methodical and challenge preconceived notions. Make sure you give the group enough time and space to collect relevant information and consider the problem in a new way. By approaching the process with a clear, rational mindset, you’ll often find that better solutions are more forthcoming.  

Try different approaches  

Problems come in all shapes and sizes and so too should the methods you use to solve them. If you find that one approach isn’t yielding results and your team isn’t finding different solutions, try mixing it up. You’ll be surprised at how using a new creative activity can unblock your team and generate great solutions.

Don’t take it personally 

Depending on the nature of your team or organizational problems, it’s easy for conversations to get heated. While it’s good for participants to be engaged in the discussions, ensure that emotions don’t run too high and that blame isn’t thrown around while finding solutions.

You’re all in it together, and even if your team or area is seeing problems, that isn’t necessarily a disparagement of you personally. Using facilitation skills to manage group dynamics is one effective method of helping conversations be more constructive.

Get the right people in the room

Your problem-solving method is often only as effective as the group using it. Getting the right people on the job and managing the number of people present is important too!

If the group is too small, you may not get enough different perspectives to effectively solve a problem. If the group is too large, you can go round and round during the ideation stages.

Creating the right group makeup is also important in ensuring you have the necessary expertise and skillset to both identify and follow up on potential solutions. Carefully consider who to include at each stage to help ensure your problem-solving method is followed and positioned for success.

Document everything

The best solutions can take refinement, iteration, and reflection to come out. Get into a habit of documenting your process in order to keep all the learnings from the session and to allow ideas to mature and develop. Many of the methods below involve the creation of documents or shared resources. Be sure to keep and share these so everyone can benefit from the work done!

Bring a facilitator 

Facilitation is all about making group processes easier. With a subject as potentially emotive and important as problem-solving, having an impartial third party in the form of a facilitator can make all the difference in finding great solutions and keeping the process moving. Consider bringing a facilitator to your problem-solving session to get better results and generate meaningful solutions!

Develop your problem-solving skills

It takes time and practice to be an effective problem solver. While some roles or participants might more naturally gravitate towards problem-solving, it can take development and planning to help everyone create better solutions.

You might develop a training program, run a problem-solving workshop or simply ask your team to practice using the techniques below. Check out our post on problem-solving skills to see how you and your group can develop the right mental process and be more resilient to issues too!

Design a great agenda

Workshops are a great format for solving problems. With the right approach, you can focus a group and help them find the solutions to their own problems. But designing a process can be time-consuming and finding the right activities can be difficult.

Check out our workshop planning guide to level-up your agenda design and start running more effective workshops. Need inspiration? Check out templates designed by expert facilitators to help you kickstart your process!

In this section, we’ll look at in-depth problem-solving methods that provide a complete end-to-end process for developing effective solutions. These will help guide your team from the discovery and definition of a problem through to delivering the right solution.

If you’re looking for an all-encompassing method or problem-solving model, these processes are a great place to start. They’ll ask your team to challenge preconceived ideas and adopt a mindset for solving problems more effectively.

• Six Thinking Hats
• Lightning Decision Jam
• Problem Definition Process
• Discovery & Action Dialogue

Design Sprint 2.0

• Open Space Technology

1. Six Thinking Hats

Individual approaches to solving a problem can be very different based on what team or role an individual holds. It can be easy for existing biases or perspectives to find their way into the mix, or for internal politics to direct a conversation.

Six Thinking Hats is a classic method for identifying the problems that need to be solved and enables your team to consider them from different angles, whether that is by focusing on facts and data, creative solutions, or by considering why a particular solution might not work.

Like all problem-solving frameworks, Six Thinking Hats is effective at helping teams remove roadblocks from a conversation or discussion and come to terms with all the aspects necessary to solve complex problems.

2. Lightning Decision Jam

Featured courtesy of Jonathan Courtney of AJ&Smart Berlin, Lightning Decision Jam is one of those strategies that should be in every facilitation toolbox. Exploring problems and finding solutions is often creative in nature, though as with any creative process, there is the potential to lose focus and get lost.

Unstructured discussions might get you there in the end, but it’s much more effective to use a method that creates a clear process and team focus.

In Lightning Decision Jam, participants are invited to begin by writing challenges, concerns, or mistakes on post-its without discussing them before then being invited by the moderator to present them to the group.

From there, the team vote on which problems to solve and are guided through steps that will allow them to reframe those problems, create solutions and then decide what to execute on. 

By deciding the problems that need to be solved as a team before moving on, this group process is great for ensuring the whole team is aligned and can take ownership over the next stages. 

Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ)   #action   #decision making   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #innovation   #design   #remote-friendly   The problem with anything that requires creative thinking is that it’s easy to get lost—lose focus and fall into the trap of having useless, open-ended, unstructured discussions. Here’s the most effective solution I’ve found: Replace all open, unstructured discussion with a clear process. What to use this exercise for: Anything which requires a group of people to make decisions, solve problems or discuss challenges. It’s always good to frame an LDJ session with a broad topic, here are some examples: The conversion flow of our checkout Our internal design process How we organise events Keeping up with our competition Improving sales flow

3. Problem Definition Process

While problems can be complex, the problem-solving methods you use to identify and solve those problems can often be simple in design. 

By taking the time to truly identify and define a problem before asking the group to reframe the challenge as an opportunity, this method is a great way to enable change.

Begin by identifying a focus question and exploring the ways in which it manifests before splitting into five teams who will each consider the problem using a different method: escape, reversal, exaggeration, distortion or wishful. Teams develop a problem objective and create ideas in line with their method before then feeding them back to the group.

This method is great for enabling in-depth discussions while also creating space for finding creative solutions too!

Problem Definition   #problem solving   #idea generation   #creativity   #online   #remote-friendly   A problem solving technique to define a problem, challenge or opportunity and to generate ideas.

4. The 5 Whys 

Sometimes, a group needs to go further with their strategies and analyze the root cause at the heart of organizational issues. An RCA or root cause analysis is the process of identifying what is at the heart of business problems or recurring challenges. 

The 5 Whys is a simple and effective method of helping a group go find the root cause of any problem or challenge and conduct analysis that will deliver results. 

By beginning with the creation of a problem statement and going through five stages to refine it, The 5 Whys provides everything you need to truly discover the cause of an issue.

The 5 Whys   #hyperisland   #innovation   This simple and powerful method is useful for getting to the core of a problem or challenge. As the title suggests, the group defines a problems, then asks the question “why” five times, often using the resulting explanation as a starting point for creative problem solving.

5. World Cafe

World Cafe is a simple but powerful facilitation technique to help bigger groups to focus their energy and attention on solving complex problems.

World Cafe enables this approach by creating a relaxed atmosphere where participants are able to self-organize and explore topics relevant and important to them which are themed around a central problem-solving purpose. Create the right atmosphere by modeling your space after a cafe and after guiding the group through the method, let them take the lead!

Making problem-solving a part of your organization’s culture in the long term can be a difficult undertaking. More approachable formats like World Cafe can be especially effective in bringing people unfamiliar with workshops into the fold. 

World Cafe   #hyperisland   #innovation   #issue analysis   World Café is a simple yet powerful method, originated by Juanita Brown, for enabling meaningful conversations driven completely by participants and the topics that are relevant and important to them. Facilitators create a cafe-style space and provide simple guidelines. Participants then self-organize and explore a set of relevant topics or questions for conversation.

6. Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

One of the best approaches is to create a safe space for a group to share and discover practices and behaviors that can help them find their own solutions.

With DAD, you can help a group choose which problems they wish to solve and which approaches they will take to do so. It’s great at helping remove resistance to change and can help get buy-in at every level too!

This process of enabling frontline ownership is great in ensuring follow-through and is one of the methods you will want in your toolbox as a facilitator.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)   #idea generation   #liberating structures   #action   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   DADs make it easy for a group or community to discover practices and behaviors that enable some individuals (without access to special resources and facing the same constraints) to find better solutions than their peers to common problems. These are called positive deviant (PD) behaviors and practices. DADs make it possible for people in the group, unit, or community to discover by themselves these PD practices. DADs also create favorable conditions for stimulating participants’ creativity in spaces where they can feel safe to invent new and more effective practices. Resistance to change evaporates as participants are unleashed to choose freely which practices they will adopt or try and which problems they will tackle. DADs make it possible to achieve frontline ownership of solutions.

7. Design Sprint 2.0

Want to see how a team can solve big problems and move forward with prototyping and testing solutions in a few days? The Design Sprint 2.0 template from Jake Knapp, author of Sprint, is a complete agenda for a with proven results.

Developing the right agenda can involve difficult but necessary planning. Ensuring all the correct steps are followed can also be stressful or time-consuming depending on your level of experience.

Use this complete 4-day workshop template if you are finding there is no obvious solution to your challenge and want to focus your team around a specific problem that might require a shortcut to launching a minimum viable product or waiting for the organization-wide implementation of a solution.

8. Open space technology

Open space technology- developed by Harrison Owen – creates a space where large groups are invited to take ownership of their problem solving and lead individual sessions. Open space technology is a great format when you have a great deal of expertise and insight in the room and want to allow for different takes and approaches on a particular theme or problem you need to be solved.

Start by bringing your participants together to align around a central theme and focus their efforts. Explain the ground rules to help guide the problem-solving process and then invite members to identify any issue connecting to the central theme that they are interested in and are prepared to take responsibility for.

Once participants have decided on their approach to the core theme, they write their issue on a piece of paper, announce it to the group, pick a session time and place, and post the paper on the wall. As the wall fills up with sessions, the group is then invited to join the sessions that interest them the most and which they can contribute to, then you’re ready to begin!

Everyone joins the problem-solving group they’ve signed up to, record the discussion and if appropriate, findings can then be shared with the rest of the group afterward.

Open Space Technology   #action plan   #idea generation   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #large group   #online   #remote-friendly   Open Space is a methodology for large groups to create their agenda discerning important topics for discussion, suitable for conferences, community gatherings and whole system facilitation

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

Using a problem-solving method to help a team identify and analyze a problem can be a quick and effective addition to any workshop or meeting.

While further actions are always necessary, you can generate momentum and alignment easily, and these activities are a great place to get started.

We’ve put together this list of techniques to help you and your team with problem identification, analysis, and discussion that sets the foundation for developing effective solutions.

Let’s take a look!

• The Creativity Dice
• Fishbone Analysis
• Problem Tree
• SWOT Analysis
• Agreement-Certainty Matrix
• The Journalistic Six
• LEGO Challenge
• What, So What, Now What?
• Journalists

Individual and group perspectives are incredibly important, but what happens if people are set in their minds and need a change of perspective in order to approach a problem more effectively?

Flip It is a method we love because it is both simple to understand and run, and allows groups to understand how their perspectives and biases are formed. 

Participants in Flip It are first invited to consider concerns, issues, or problems from a perspective of fear and write them on a flip chart. Then, the group is asked to consider those same issues from a perspective of hope and flip their understanding.  

No problem and solution is free from existing bias and by changing perspectives with Flip It, you can then develop a problem solving model quickly and effectively.

Flip It!   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Often, a change in a problem or situation comes simply from a change in our perspectives. Flip It! is a quick game designed to show players that perspectives are made, not born.

10. The Creativity Dice

One of the most useful problem solving skills you can teach your team is of approaching challenges with creativity, flexibility, and openness. Games like The Creativity Dice allow teams to overcome the potential hurdle of too much linear thinking and approach the process with a sense of fun and speed. 

In The Creativity Dice, participants are organized around a topic and roll a dice to determine what they will work on for a period of 3 minutes at a time. They might roll a 3 and work on investigating factual information on the chosen topic. They might roll a 1 and work on identifying the specific goals, standards, or criteria for the session.

Encouraging rapid work and iteration while asking participants to be flexible are great skills to cultivate. Having a stage for idea incubation in this game is also important. Moments of pause can help ensure the ideas that are put forward are the most suitable. 

The Creativity Dice   #creativity   #problem solving   #thiagi   #issue analysis   Too much linear thinking is hazardous to creative problem solving. To be creative, you should approach the problem (or the opportunity) from different points of view. You should leave a thought hanging in mid-air and move to another. This skipping around prevents premature closure and lets your brain incubate one line of thought while you consciously pursue another.

11. Fishbone Analysis

Organizational or team challenges are rarely simple, and it’s important to remember that one problem can be an indication of something that goes deeper and may require further consideration to be solved.

Fishbone Analysis helps groups to dig deeper and understand the origins of a problem. It’s a great example of a root cause analysis method that is simple for everyone on a team to get their head around. 

Participants in this activity are asked to annotate a diagram of a fish, first adding the problem or issue to be worked on at the head of a fish before then brainstorming the root causes of the problem and adding them as bones on the fish. 

Using abstractions such as a diagram of a fish can really help a team break out of their regular thinking and develop a creative approach.

Fishbone Analysis   #problem solving   ##root cause analysis   #decision making   #online facilitation   A process to help identify and understand the origins of problems, issues or observations.

12. Problem Tree 

Encouraging visual thinking can be an essential part of many strategies. By simply reframing and clarifying problems, a group can move towards developing a problem solving model that works for them. 

In Problem Tree, groups are asked to first brainstorm a list of problems – these can be design problems, team problems or larger business problems – and then organize them into a hierarchy. The hierarchy could be from most important to least important or abstract to practical, though the key thing with problem solving games that involve this aspect is that your group has some way of managing and sorting all the issues that are raised.

Once you have a list of problems that need to be solved and have organized them accordingly, you’re then well-positioned for the next problem solving steps.

Problem tree   #define intentions   #create   #design   #issue analysis   A problem tree is a tool to clarify the hierarchy of problems addressed by the team within a design project; it represents high level problems or related sublevel problems.

13. SWOT Analysis

Chances are you’ve heard of the SWOT Analysis before. This problem-solving method focuses on identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is a tried and tested method for both individuals and teams.

Start by creating a desired end state or outcome and bare this in mind – any process solving model is made more effective by knowing what you are moving towards. Create a quadrant made up of the four categories of a SWOT analysis and ask participants to generate ideas based on each of those quadrants.

Once you have those ideas assembled in their quadrants, cluster them together based on their affinity with other ideas. These clusters are then used to facilitate group conversations and move things forward. 

SWOT analysis   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   #meeting facilitation   The SWOT Analysis is a long-standing technique of looking at what we have, with respect to the desired end state, as well as what we could improve on. It gives us an opportunity to gauge approaching opportunities and dangers, and assess the seriousness of the conditions that affect our future. When we understand those conditions, we can influence what comes next.

14. Agreement-Certainty Matrix

Not every problem-solving approach is right for every challenge, and deciding on the right method for the challenge at hand is a key part of being an effective team.

The Agreement Certainty matrix helps teams align on the nature of the challenges facing them. By sorting problems from simple to chaotic, your team can understand what methods are suitable for each problem and what they can do to ensure effective results. 

If you are already using Liberating Structures techniques as part of your problem-solving strategy, the Agreement-Certainty Matrix can be an invaluable addition to your process. We’ve found it particularly if you are having issues with recurring problems in your organization and want to go deeper in understanding the root cause. 

Agreement-Certainty Matrix   #issue analysis   #liberating structures   #problem solving   You can help individuals or groups avoid the frequent mistake of trying to solve a problem with methods that are not adapted to the nature of their challenge. The combination of two questions makes it possible to easily sort challenges into four categories: simple, complicated, complex , and chaotic .  A problem is simple when it can be solved reliably with practices that are easy to duplicate.  It is complicated when experts are required to devise a sophisticated solution that will yield the desired results predictably.  A problem is complex when there are several valid ways to proceed but outcomes are not predictable in detail.  Chaotic is when the context is too turbulent to identify a path forward.  A loose analogy may be used to describe these differences: simple is like following a recipe, complicated like sending a rocket to the moon, complex like raising a child, and chaotic is like the game “Pin the Tail on the Donkey.”  The Liberating Structures Matching Matrix in Chapter 5 can be used as the first step to clarify the nature of a challenge and avoid the mismatches between problems and solutions that are frequently at the root of chronic, recurring problems.

Organizing and charting a team’s progress can be important in ensuring its success. SQUID (Sequential Question and Insight Diagram) is a great model that allows a team to effectively switch between giving questions and answers and develop the skills they need to stay on track throughout the process. 

Begin with two different colored sticky notes – one for questions and one for answers – and with your central topic (the head of the squid) on the board. Ask the group to first come up with a series of questions connected to their best guess of how to approach the topic. Ask the group to come up with answers to those questions, fix them to the board and connect them with a line. After some discussion, go back to question mode by responding to the generated answers or other points on the board.

It’s rewarding to see a diagram grow throughout the exercise, and a completed SQUID can provide a visual resource for future effort and as an example for other teams.

SQUID   #gamestorming   #project planning   #issue analysis   #problem solving   When exploring an information space, it’s important for a group to know where they are at any given time. By using SQUID, a group charts out the territory as they go and can navigate accordingly. SQUID stands for Sequential Question and Insight Diagram.

16. Speed Boat

To continue with our nautical theme, Speed Boat is a short and sweet activity that can help a team quickly identify what employees, clients or service users might have a problem with and analyze what might be standing in the way of achieving a solution.

Methods that allow for a group to make observations, have insights and obtain those eureka moments quickly are invaluable when trying to solve complex problems.

In Speed Boat, the approach is to first consider what anchors and challenges might be holding an organization (or boat) back. Bonus points if you are able to identify any sharks in the water and develop ideas that can also deal with competitors!   

Speed Boat   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Speedboat is a short and sweet way to identify what your employees or clients don’t like about your product/service or what’s standing in the way of a desired goal.

17. The Journalistic Six

Some of the most effective ways of solving problems is by encouraging teams to be more inclusive and diverse in their thinking.

Based on the six key questions journalism students are taught to answer in articles and news stories, The Journalistic Six helps create teams to see the whole picture. By using who, what, when, where, why, and how to facilitate the conversation and encourage creative thinking, your team can make sure that the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the are covered exhaustively and thoughtfully. Reporter’s notebook and dictaphone optional.

The Journalistic Six – Who What When Where Why How   #idea generation   #issue analysis   #problem solving   #online   #creative thinking   #remote-friendly   A questioning method for generating, explaining, investigating ideas.

18. LEGO Challenge

Now for an activity that is a little out of the (toy) box. LEGO Serious Play is a facilitation methodology that can be used to improve creative thinking and problem-solving skills. 

The LEGO Challenge includes giving each member of the team an assignment that is hidden from the rest of the group while they create a structure without speaking.

What the LEGO challenge brings to the table is a fun working example of working with stakeholders who might not be on the same page to solve problems. Also, it’s LEGO! Who doesn’t love LEGO! 

LEGO Challenge   #hyperisland   #team   A team-building activity in which groups must work together to build a structure out of LEGO, but each individual has a secret “assignment” which makes the collaborative process more challenging. It emphasizes group communication, leadership dynamics, conflict, cooperation, patience and problem solving strategy.

19. What, So What, Now What?

If not carefully managed, the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the problem-solving process can actually create more problems and misunderstandings.

The What, So What, Now What? problem-solving activity is designed to help collect insights and move forward while also eliminating the possibility of disagreement when it comes to identifying, clarifying, and analyzing organizational or work problems. 

Facilitation is all about bringing groups together so that might work on a shared goal and the best problem-solving strategies ensure that teams are aligned in purpose, if not initially in opinion or insight.

Throughout the three steps of this game, you give everyone on a team to reflect on a problem by asking what happened, why it is important, and what actions should then be taken. 

This can be a great activity for bringing our individual perceptions about a problem or challenge and contextualizing it in a larger group setting. This is one of the most important problem-solving skills you can bring to your organization.

W³ – What, So What, Now What?   #issue analysis   #innovation   #liberating structures   You can help groups reflect on a shared experience in a way that builds understanding and spurs coordinated action while avoiding unproductive conflict. It is possible for every voice to be heard while simultaneously sifting for insights and shaping new direction. Progressing in stages makes this practical—from collecting facts about What Happened to making sense of these facts with So What and finally to what actions logically follow with Now What . The shared progression eliminates most of the misunderstandings that otherwise fuel disagreements about what to do. Voila!

20. Journalists  

Problem analysis can be one of the most important and decisive stages of all problem-solving tools. Sometimes, a team can become bogged down in the details and are unable to move forward.

Journalists is an activity that can avoid a group from getting stuck in the problem identification or problem analysis stages of the process.

In Journalists, the group is invited to draft the front page of a fictional newspaper and figure out what stories deserve to be on the cover and what headlines those stories will have. By reframing how your problems and challenges are approached, you can help a team move productively through the process and be better prepared for the steps to follow.

Journalists   #vision   #big picture   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   This is an exercise to use when the group gets stuck in details and struggles to see the big picture. Also good for defining a vision.

Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions 

The success of any problem-solving process can be measured by the solutions it produces. After you’ve defined the issue, explored existing ideas, and ideated, it’s time to narrow down to the correct solution.

Use these problem-solving techniques when you want to help your team find consensus, compare possible solutions, and move towards taking action on a particular problem.

• Improved Solutions
• Four-Step Sketch
• 15% Solutions
• How-Now-Wow matrix
• Impact Effort Matrix

21. Mindspin  

Brainstorming is part of the bread and butter of the problem-solving process and all problem-solving strategies benefit from getting ideas out and challenging a team to generate solutions quickly. 

With Mindspin, participants are encouraged not only to generate ideas but to do so under time constraints and by slamming down cards and passing them on. By doing multiple rounds, your team can begin with a free generation of possible solutions before moving on to developing those solutions and encouraging further ideation. 

This is one of our favorite problem-solving activities and can be great for keeping the energy up throughout the workshop. Remember the importance of helping people become engaged in the process – energizing problem-solving techniques like Mindspin can help ensure your team stays engaged and happy, even when the problems they’re coming together to solve are complex. 

MindSpin   #teampedia   #idea generation   #problem solving   #action   A fast and loud method to enhance brainstorming within a team. Since this activity has more than round ideas that are repetitive can be ruled out leaving more creative and innovative answers to the challenge.

22. Improved Solutions

After a team has successfully identified a problem and come up with a few solutions, it can be tempting to call the work of the problem-solving process complete. That said, the first solution is not necessarily the best, and by including a further review and reflection activity into your problem-solving model, you can ensure your group reaches the best possible result. 

One of a number of problem-solving games from Thiagi Group, Improved Solutions helps you go the extra mile and develop suggested solutions with close consideration and peer review. By supporting the discussion of several problems at once and by shifting team roles throughout, this problem-solving technique is a dynamic way of finding the best solution. 

Improved Solutions   #creativity   #thiagi   #problem solving   #action   #team   You can improve any solution by objectively reviewing its strengths and weaknesses and making suitable adjustments. In this creativity framegame, you improve the solutions to several problems. To maintain objective detachment, you deal with a different problem during each of six rounds and assume different roles (problem owner, consultant, basher, booster, enhancer, and evaluator) during each round. At the conclusion of the activity, each player ends up with two solutions to her problem.

23. Four Step Sketch

Creative thinking and visual ideation does not need to be confined to the opening stages of your problem-solving strategies. Exercises that include sketching and prototyping on paper can be effective at the solution finding and development stage of the process, and can be great for keeping a team engaged. 

By going from simple notes to a crazy 8s round that involves rapidly sketching 8 variations on their ideas before then producing a final solution sketch, the group is able to iterate quickly and visually. Problem-solving techniques like Four-Step Sketch are great if you have a group of different thinkers and want to change things up from a more textual or discussion-based approach.

Four-Step Sketch   #design sprint   #innovation   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   The four-step sketch is an exercise that helps people to create well-formed concepts through a structured process that includes: Review key information Start design work on paper,  Consider multiple variations , Create a detailed solution . This exercise is preceded by a set of other activities allowing the group to clarify the challenge they want to solve. See how the Four Step Sketch exercise fits into a Design Sprint

24. 15% Solutions

Some problems are simpler than others and with the right problem-solving activities, you can empower people to take immediate actions that can help create organizational change. 

Part of the liberating structures toolkit, 15% solutions is a problem-solving technique that focuses on finding and implementing solutions quickly. A process of iterating and making small changes quickly can help generate momentum and an appetite for solving complex problems.

Problem-solving strategies can live and die on whether people are onboard. Getting some quick wins is a great way of getting people behind the process.   

It can be extremely empowering for a team to realize that problem-solving techniques can be deployed quickly and easily and delineate between things they can positively impact and those things they cannot change. 

15% Solutions   #action   #liberating structures   #remote-friendly   You can reveal the actions, however small, that everyone can do immediately. At a minimum, these will create momentum, and that may make a BIG difference.  15% Solutions show that there is no reason to wait around, feel powerless, or fearful. They help people pick it up a level. They get individuals and the group to focus on what is within their discretion instead of what they cannot change.  With a very simple question, you can flip the conversation to what can be done and find solutions to big problems that are often distributed widely in places not known in advance. Shifting a few grains of sand may trigger a landslide and change the whole landscape.

25. How-Now-Wow Matrix

The problem-solving process is often creative, as complex problems usually require a change of thinking and creative response in order to find the best solutions. While it’s common for the first stages to encourage creative thinking, groups can often gravitate to familiar solutions when it comes to the end of the process. 

When selecting solutions, you don’t want to lose your creative energy! The How-Now-Wow Matrix from Gamestorming is a great problem-solving activity that enables a group to stay creative and think out of the box when it comes to selecting the right solution for a given problem.

Problem-solving techniques that encourage creative thinking and the ideation and selection of new solutions can be the most effective in organisational change. Give the How-Now-Wow Matrix a go, and not just for how pleasant it is to say out loud. 

How-Now-Wow Matrix   #gamestorming   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   When people want to develop new ideas, they most often think out of the box in the brainstorming or divergent phase. However, when it comes to convergence, people often end up picking ideas that are most familiar to them. This is called a ‘creative paradox’ or a ‘creadox’. The How-Now-Wow matrix is an idea selection tool that breaks the creadox by forcing people to weigh each idea on 2 parameters.

26. Impact and Effort Matrix

All problem-solving techniques hope to not only find solutions to a given problem or challenge but to find the best solution. When it comes to finding a solution, groups are invited to put on their decision-making hats and really think about how a proposed idea would work in practice. 

The Impact and Effort Matrix is one of the problem-solving techniques that fall into this camp, empowering participants to first generate ideas and then categorize them into a 2×2 matrix based on impact and effort.

Activities that invite critical thinking while remaining simple are invaluable. Use the Impact and Effort Matrix to move from ideation and towards evaluating potential solutions before then committing to them. 

Impact and Effort Matrix   #gamestorming   #decision making   #action   #remote-friendly   In this decision-making exercise, possible actions are mapped based on two factors: effort required to implement and potential impact. Categorizing ideas along these lines is a useful technique in decision making, as it obliges contributors to balance and evaluate suggested actions before committing to them.

27. Dotmocracy

If you’ve followed each of the problem-solving steps with your group successfully, you should move towards the end of your process with heaps of possible solutions developed with a specific problem in mind. But how do you help a group go from ideation to putting a solution into action? 

Dotmocracy – or Dot Voting -is a tried and tested method of helping a team in the problem-solving process make decisions and put actions in place with a degree of oversight and consensus. 

One of the problem-solving techniques that should be in every facilitator’s toolbox, Dot Voting is fast and effective and can help identify the most popular and best solutions and help bring a group to a decision effectively. 

Dotmocracy   #action   #decision making   #group prioritization   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Dotmocracy is a simple method for group prioritization or decision-making. It is not an activity on its own, but a method to use in processes where prioritization or decision-making is the aim. The method supports a group to quickly see which options are most popular or relevant. The options or ideas are written on post-its and stuck up on a wall for the whole group to see. Each person votes for the options they think are the strongest, and that information is used to inform a decision.

All facilitators know that warm-ups and icebreakers are useful for any workshop or group process. Problem-solving workshops are no different.

Use these problem-solving techniques to warm up a group and prepare them for the rest of the process. Activating your group by tapping into some of the top problem-solving skills can be one of the best ways to see great outcomes from your session.

• Check-in/Check-out
• Doodling Together
• Show and Tell
• Constellations
• Draw a Tree

28. Check-in / Check-out

Solid processes are planned from beginning to end, and the best facilitators know that setting the tone and establishing a safe, open environment can be integral to a successful problem-solving process.

Check-in / Check-out is a great way to begin and/or bookend a problem-solving workshop. Checking in to a session emphasizes that everyone will be seen, heard, and expected to contribute. 

If you are running a series of meetings, setting a consistent pattern of checking in and checking out can really help your team get into a groove. We recommend this opening-closing activity for small to medium-sized groups though it can work with large groups if they’re disciplined!

Check-in / Check-out   #team   #opening   #closing   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Either checking-in or checking-out is a simple way for a team to open or close a process, symbolically and in a collaborative way. Checking-in/out invites each member in a group to be present, seen and heard, and to express a reflection or a feeling. Checking-in emphasizes presence, focus and group commitment; checking-out emphasizes reflection and symbolic closure.

29. Doodling Together  

Thinking creatively and not being afraid to make suggestions are important problem-solving skills for any group or team, and warming up by encouraging these behaviors is a great way to start. 

Doodling Together is one of our favorite creative ice breaker games – it’s quick, effective, and fun and can make all following problem-solving steps easier by encouraging a group to collaborate visually. By passing cards and adding additional items as they go, the workshop group gets into a groove of co-creation and idea development that is crucial to finding solutions to problems. 

Doodling Together   #collaboration   #creativity   #teamwork   #fun   #team   #visual methods   #energiser   #icebreaker   #remote-friendly   Create wild, weird and often funny postcards together & establish a group’s creative confidence.

30. Show and Tell

You might remember some version of Show and Tell from being a kid in school and it’s a great problem-solving activity to kick off a session.

Asking participants to prepare a little something before a workshop by bringing an object for show and tell can help them warm up before the session has even begun! Games that include a physical object can also help encourage early engagement before moving onto more big-picture thinking.

By asking your participants to tell stories about why they chose to bring a particular item to the group, you can help teams see things from new perspectives and see both differences and similarities in the way they approach a topic. Great groundwork for approaching a problem-solving process as a team! 

Show and Tell   #gamestorming   #action   #opening   #meeting facilitation   Show and Tell taps into the power of metaphors to reveal players’ underlying assumptions and associations around a topic The aim of the game is to get a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on anything—a new project, an organizational restructuring, a shift in the company’s vision or team dynamic.

31. Constellations

Who doesn’t love stars? Constellations is a great warm-up activity for any workshop as it gets people up off their feet, energized, and ready to engage in new ways with established topics. It’s also great for showing existing beliefs, biases, and patterns that can come into play as part of your session.

Using warm-up games that help build trust and connection while also allowing for non-verbal responses can be great for easing people into the problem-solving process and encouraging engagement from everyone in the group. Constellations is great in large spaces that allow for movement and is definitely a practical exercise to allow the group to see patterns that are otherwise invisible. 

Constellations   #trust   #connection   #opening   #coaching   #patterns   #system   Individuals express their response to a statement or idea by standing closer or further from a central object. Used with teams to reveal system, hidden patterns, perspectives.

32. Draw a Tree

Problem-solving games that help raise group awareness through a central, unifying metaphor can be effective ways to warm-up a group in any problem-solving model.

Draw a Tree is a simple warm-up activity you can use in any group and which can provide a quick jolt of energy. Start by asking your participants to draw a tree in just 45 seconds – they can choose whether it will be abstract or realistic. 

Once the timer is up, ask the group how many people included the roots of the tree and use this as a means to discuss how we can ignore important parts of any system simply because they are not visible.

All problem-solving strategies are made more effective by thinking of problems critically and by exposing things that may not normally come to light. Warm-up games like Draw a Tree are great in that they quickly demonstrate some key problem-solving skills in an accessible and effective way.

Draw a Tree   #thiagi   #opening   #perspectives   #remote-friendly   With this game you can raise awarness about being more mindful, and aware of the environment we live in.

Each step of the problem-solving workshop benefits from an intelligent deployment of activities, games, and techniques. Bringing your session to an effective close helps ensure that solutions are followed through on and that you also celebrate what has been achieved.

Here are some problem-solving activities you can use to effectively close a workshop or meeting and ensure the great work you’ve done can continue afterward.

• One Breath Feedback
• Who What When Matrix
• Response Cards

How do I conclude a problem-solving process?

All good things must come to an end. With the bulk of the work done, it can be tempting to conclude your workshop swiftly and without a moment to debrief and align. This can be problematic in that it doesn’t allow your team to fully process the results or reflect on the process.

At the end of an effective session, your team will have gone through a process that, while productive, can be exhausting. It’s important to give your group a moment to take a breath, ensure that they are clear on future actions, and provide short feedback before leaving the space. 

The primary purpose of any problem-solving method is to generate solutions and then implement them. Be sure to take the opportunity to ensure everyone is aligned and ready to effectively implement the solutions you produced in the workshop.

Remember that every process can be improved and by giving a short moment to collect feedback in the session, you can further refine your problem-solving methods and see further success in the future too.

33. One Breath Feedback

Maintaining attention and focus during the closing stages of a problem-solving workshop can be tricky and so being concise when giving feedback can be important. It’s easy to incur “death by feedback” should some team members go on for too long sharing their perspectives in a quick feedback round. 

One Breath Feedback is a great closing activity for workshops. You give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback on what they’ve done but only in the space of a single breath. This keeps feedback short and to the point and means that everyone is encouraged to provide the most important piece of feedback to them. 

One breath feedback   #closing   #feedback   #action   This is a feedback round in just one breath that excels in maintaining attention: each participants is able to speak during just one breath … for most people that’s around 20 to 25 seconds … unless of course you’ve been a deep sea diver in which case you’ll be able to do it for longer.

34. Who What When Matrix 

Matrices feature as part of many effective problem-solving strategies and with good reason. They are easily recognizable, simple to use, and generate results.

The Who What When Matrix is a great tool to use when closing your problem-solving session by attributing a who, what and when to the actions and solutions you have decided upon. The resulting matrix is a simple, easy-to-follow way of ensuring your team can move forward. 

Great solutions can’t be enacted without action and ownership. Your problem-solving process should include a stage for allocating tasks to individuals or teams and creating a realistic timeframe for those solutions to be implemented or checked out. Use this method to keep the solution implementation process clear and simple for all involved. 

Who/What/When Matrix   #gamestorming   #action   #project planning   With Who/What/When matrix, you can connect people with clear actions they have defined and have committed to.

35. Response cards

Group discussion can comprise the bulk of most problem-solving activities and by the end of the process, you might find that your team is talked out! 

Providing a means for your team to give feedback with short written notes can ensure everyone is head and can contribute without the need to stand up and talk. Depending on the needs of the group, giving an alternative can help ensure everyone can contribute to your problem-solving model in the way that makes the most sense for them.

Response Cards is a great way to close a workshop if you are looking for a gentle warm-down and want to get some swift discussion around some of the feedback that is raised. 

Response Cards   #debriefing   #closing   #structured sharing   #questions and answers   #thiagi   #action   It can be hard to involve everyone during a closing of a session. Some might stay in the background or get unheard because of louder participants. However, with the use of Response Cards, everyone will be involved in providing feedback or clarify questions at the end of a session.

Save time and effort discovering the right solutions

A structured problem solving process is a surefire way of solving tough problems, discovering creative solutions and driving organizational change. But how can you design for successful outcomes?

With SessionLab, it’s easy to design engaging workshops that deliver results. Drag, drop and reorder blocks  to build your agenda. When you make changes or update your agenda, your session  timing   adjusts automatically , saving you time on manual adjustments.

Collaborating with stakeholders or clients? Share your agenda with a single click and collaborate in real-time. No more sending documents back and forth over email.

Explore  how to use SessionLab  to design effective problem solving workshops or  watch this five minute video  to see the planner in action!

Over to you

The problem-solving process can often be as complicated and multifaceted as the problems they are set-up to solve. With the right problem-solving techniques and a mix of creative exercises designed to guide discussion and generate purposeful ideas, we hope we’ve given you the tools to find the best solutions as simply and easily as possible.

Is there a problem-solving technique that you are missing here? Do you have a favorite activity or method you use when facilitating? Let us know in the comments below, we’d love to hear from you! 

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Going from a mere idea to a workshop that delivers results for your clients can feel like a daunting task. In this piece, we will shine a light on all the work behind the scenes and help you learn how to plan a workshop from start to finish. On a good day, facilitation can feel like effortless magic, but that is mostly the result of backstage work, foresight, and a lot of careful planning. Read on to learn a step-by-step approach to breaking the process of planning a workshop into small, manageable chunks.  The flow starts with the first meeting with a client to define the purposes of a workshop.…

How does learning work? A clever 9-year-old once told me: “I know I am learning something new when I am surprised.” The science of adult learning tells us that, in order to learn new skills (which, unsurprisingly, is harder for adults to do than kids) grown-ups need to first get into a specific headspace.  In a business, this approach is often employed in a training session where employees learn new skills or work on professional development. But how do you ensure your training is effective? In this guide, we'll explore how to create an effective training session plan and run engaging training sessions. As team leader, project manager, or consultant,…

Effective online tools are a necessity for smooth and engaging virtual workshops and meetings. But how do you choose the right ones? Do you sometimes feel that the good old pen and paper or MS Office toolkit and email leaves you struggling to stay on top of managing and delivering your workshop? Fortunately, there are plenty of online tools to make your life easier when you need to facilitate a meeting and lead workshops. In this post, we’ll share our favorite online tools you can use to make your job as a facilitator easier. In fact, there are plenty of free online workshop tools and meeting facilitation software you can…

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Sign up for free

Problem Solving in Teams and Groups - 2

(5 reviews)

Cameron W. Piercy

Copyright Year: 2019

Publisher: University of Kansas Libraries

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Eric Kaufman, Professor, Virginia Tech on 5/19/21

The book is written in accessible language, with practical learning activities and related resources interspersed. It was helpful to see the sample course syllabus and schedule, because it allowed me to consider similarities and differences with... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The book is written in accessible language, with practical learning activities and related resources interspersed. It was helpful to see the sample course syllabus and schedule, because it allowed me to consider similarities and differences with existing courses that may benefit from adopting this textbook. Although the conceptual frameworks provided in the textbook are relevant for graduate students, they are sometimes presented in a way that seems more appropriate for undergraduate students. If the book was used for a graduate-level course, I believe it may need to be supplemented with scholarly publications that highlight the related research.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The content is generally accurate and unbiased. Some of the hyperlinked embedded within the text are broken.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The concepts are relevant for present-day application, including descriptions of many classical psychological experiments. However, in several chapters, I was somewhat disappointed the references were not more current and reflective of recent research.

Clarity rating: 4

The text is written in accessible prose, and many of the chapters contain appropriate attention to terminology. While many images and textboxes are visually appealing, some of the figures are not as crisp as I would like them to be.

Consistency rating: 1

There is much more variance between chapters than I had anticipated, making the book seem a little more like a coursepack (i.e., collection of resources) than a textbook. The difference in structure and approach are extreme enough that I believe students would find it frustrating. The variation may also be difficult for instructors to manage, as they consider different approaches to learning objectives, vocabulary, discussion questions, application activities, concept checks, outside resources, etc.

Modularity rating: 4

The text is composed of many smaller reading sections, including Wikipedia entries. Accordingly, it could be reorganized and realigned without losses from the shifts. However, because most chapters are freely available elsewhere, I would be inclined to go back to those original sources (e.g., OpenStax, NOBA, and other Pressbooks), rather than relying upon this book, which may not reflect the most current version.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

I appreciate the organization in three macro sections. However, I remain unclear why some chapters/sections are included and/or positioned where they are. For example, the chapter on “Intercultural and Plane Crashes” seems random. It would be helpful if each of the macro sections began with an overview of the contents, describing the mental model that explains the organization.

Interface rating: 3

The interface is generally sufficient, but it varies from one chapter to another, which can leave readers confused about what to expect with different hyperlinks or font effects. Also, while many of the font effects are carried into the PDF version, some functionality is lost, which may cause some confusion for readers using the PDF version.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

The text contains few grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

The book contains cultural variety and sensitivity to the same level I would expect in similar textbooks. Like most textbooks, though, there are opportunities for underrepresented populations to be better reflected in the examples and images provided. While this varies from one chapter to another, I was pleased to see some demographic diversity in photographs included in the book.

Because the book comes across more as a coursepack than a textbook, I may be inclined to create my own course rather than adopt this book. However, it did highlight related resources that could be used for such a coursepack or adopted as an alternate option for an open textbook.

Reviewed by Renee Owen, Assistant Professor, Southern Oregon University on 1/12/21

I would be using the book for a graduate-level course in Adult Learning/Education, with a focus on leadership, particularly leading nonprofit organizations. The content is appropriate for the workplace. The content has a good broad overview of... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

I would be using the book for a graduate-level course in Adult Learning/Education, with a focus on leadership, particularly leading nonprofit organizations. The content is appropriate for the workplace. The content has a good broad overview of different approaches to group dynamics and could be useful at the graduate level, although probably more appropriate for undergraduate. That is to say it is comprehensive and broad, more so than drilling more in-depth into particular areas. There is no glossary or index.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book seemed accurate and up to date.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The content is definitely up to date, with many theories that have longevity. Workplace topics are, of course, changing rapidly in today's world, so there will be a need for updates, something the author cannot control.

Clarity rating: 5

I liked the writing style. This text is easy to understand. It has a nice flow.

Consistency rating: 5

The book is organized with consistency that is followed throughout the book, making it easy to navigate.

Modularity rating: 5

I would not personally use the whole text, so the modularity of the book is important. It is organized and presented in a manner where chapters can be single, or even sections within chapters.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is presented in a clear fashion, making it easy to navigate and to read.

Interface rating: 4

The book is mostly in APA style, but there seemed to be a mixture of citation styles in some places. The images were important. I would prefer more images (but that is personal preference). Graphics, such as charts, are clear.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I am not a good proofing editor. I did not notice errors.

There was some attention paid to cultural responsiveness but did not extend the issue as much as today's world demands. More research on racial bias and the neuroscience of racial bias could be helpful. I appreciate the multi-racial photos, but there could be more.

Reviewed by Karishma Chatterjee, Assistant Professor of Instruction, University of Texas at Arlington on 3/6/20

The content covers a range of topics that are useful for a junior/upper level class about working in groups and teams. The content can be used for potentially two different courses- one a class about working in groups and the other one about... read more

The content covers a range of topics that are useful for a junior/upper level class about working in groups and teams. The content can be used for potentially two different courses- one a class about working in groups and the other one about business communication in groups.

The book starts out by drawing a distinction between groups and teams, which is a useful way to start a class about problem solving in teams and groups. Certain chapters such as Chapter 18 had descriptions and images of empirical studies on conformity and obedience that would enhance student understanding of the content.

However, there were some chapters that needed additional content. For example, chapter 2 focuses on cooperation and chapter 3 is about social comparison. A section on competition, particularly the role of communication, and its effect on teams and groups is needed. If this book is being used in Communication courses, it would be beneficial to include how group processes such as competition and cooperation are communicative in nature. Gibbs (1961) communication patterns would be helpful in identifying how communication can create defensive or supportive communication climates in teams and groups. Similarly, the role of culture is alluded without mentioning Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.

Most of the claims seemed accurate. The content was error-free and unbiased. On page 308, a claim needs a citation.

As a whole, there was literature presented that covered the history of how we study groups and what group dynamics look like in existing businesses. The text is arranged in a way that updates will be straightforward to implement.

The chapters were easy to read. However, the title of chapter Chapter 21 “Intercultural and Plane Crashes” is incomplete.

The text seems to be internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

The text is readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within a course.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

It is useful to start the book differentiating teams from groups given that people often use the two terms interchangeably. Students will appreciate the examples of different types of teams the author provides along with the organizational charts. References were provided at the end of each chapter, which is easier to look up as compared to textbooks that have all references listed at the end.

It would be helpful for the readers if there is a justification for the layout of the book. For example, chapter 5 Shared Information Bias would fit well with Chapter 15 Judgment and Decision Making. There is no rationale for why Chapter 5 is part of section 1 (An overview section ) and not section 3 (Group and team theory).

The book chapters have different citation styles. Some of the chapters seemed to be written in American Psychological Association’s (APA) style that uses in-text author citations and others are written in a different style with end notes . In section 1 most of the chapters are written in APA, while in section 2 and 3, there seems to be a mix of citations for the different chapters. The reader would have to adjust given that one can become used to reading in APA because of the first section.

The book seems to be largely error free. There are two floating “I” on page 293

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The book is not culturally insensitive. There was some variation in pictorial representations. Study results also included women and people of different countries.

Reviewed by Melvina Goodman, Adjunct Faculty, J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College on 1/7/20

Thank you for developing this textbook. I teach a group dynamics course at a community college, and was looking for a new text for my course, as well as I want to help students reduce the cost of purchasing textbooks. With that said, I would... read more

Thank you for developing this textbook. I teach a group dynamics course at a community college, and was looking for a new text for my course, as well as I want to help students reduce the cost of purchasing textbooks. With that said, I would like to offer some constructive feedback about the textbook. Overall, the book is comprehensive as evidence that it provides good information about group work, stages of group and other things about the pros and cons of group. It would have been helpful if the author had included more information in the introduction section including the purpose, how the book is organized, and maybe a personal note as to the reason he decided to write the book. That would be beneficial, because readers could decide whether or not they want to click the links of the table of contents to determine the content.

The text appears to be accurate, error-free, and unbiased.

The content is relevant and it addresses current trends as it relates to working with teams and groups. The information was somewhat generic, meaning, the information seemed tailored to the workplace, not necessarily for group counseling, although some of the activities are useful for teaching group counseling and group dynamics.

The text is written simply and clearly. The language and terms are user-friendly.

The psychology of groups section provided relevant information in terms of gaining an understanding of the rationale for groups and the overall role groups play in personal and professional development. It also provided good information on management and leadership styles.

The sections can be easily divided for class assignments. This text provides ample activities to promote student learning and engagement. Group dynamics is a skills-based course. Since the classroom has various types of learners, it is significant to utilize various teaching methods to convey information. In addition to lecture and PowerPoint presentation, including icebreakers and other fun activities in the syllabus enhances the learning experience for students.

The text is organized well. I appreciate that the author included references within each chapter, instead of at the end of the text. Some of the chapters have a list vocabulary words, however for the sake of having information at your fingertips, it would be helpful if the author included a glossary, a name index, and a subject index.

Interface rating: 5

There were no navigation issues, and all images and charts were clear.

There weren't any noticeable grammatical errors.

It was good to see that the author included images of various ethnic and cultural groups. Our world is becoming increasingly diverse, and it is imperative that publications and media outlets reflect today's world regardless of personal opinions and biases. Of course, there could be more images included throughout the book, since an image speaks volumes.

Reviewed by Tammy Hall, Instructor, ULL on 11/5/19

The textbook opened with a table of contents. The beginning chapter started with the difference between group (informal/formal) and team. A key distinction for students to know. The content included the five stages of group development. The book... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

The textbook opened with a table of contents. The beginning chapter started with the difference between group (informal/formal) and team. A key distinction for students to know. The content included the five stages of group development. The book did not give enough detail group diversity, benefits of diversity in groups, and group decision making--missing some key decision making processes (Delphi and nominal group techniques). The book did not contain a glossary or index. I was unable to find information on contemporary organizations and new types of teams--virtual teams.

The information is accurate. I did find that some information could have been fleshed out more and additional information added for example the punctuated equilibrium model for group formation was not discussed.

The information is broad enough to allow for additions.

Excellent key terms. The terms were easy to understand.

Consistency rating: 3

Some inconsistencies were evident in the book. The reader activities in the book were not evident throughout the different chapters. Some chapters had activities, key takeaways, and/or discussions but not all chapters.

Modularity rating: 3

There were many areas of the text which were large areas of texts.

Perhaps the Groups Theory section should have proceeded the Groups & Teams in Action

The images were good.

The book did not have any grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

No--I only noticed one set of children of color (picture depicting empathy) and African American male in the section discussing conformity. As an African American woman I could not relate to many of the images in the book.

Some of the paragraphs were long and perhaps should be broken up with graphics or other images.

Table of Contents

I. Groups & Teams Overview

• 1. Defining Teams and Groups
• 2. Cooperation
• 3. Social Comparison
• 4. The Psychology of Groups
• 5. Shared Information Bias
• 6. Inattentional Blindness
• 7. Teams as Systems

II. Groups & Teams (In)Action

• 8. Professional Writing
• 9. Supplemental Writing Advice
• 10. Persuasive Presentations
• 11. Groups and meetings
• 12. Gantt Charts
• 13. Organizational culture
• 14. Performance Evaluation

III. Group & Team Theory

• 15. Power in Teams and Groups
• 16. Judgment and Decision Making
• 17. Cultivating a Supportive Group Climate
• 18. Structuration Theory
• 19. Teaming with Machines
• 20. Leadership
• 21. Conformity and Obedience
• 22. Working in Diverse Teams
• 23. Intercultural and Plane Crashes
• 24. Conflict and Negotiation

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This textbook covers content relevant to COMS342 Problem Solving in Teams and Groups at the University of Kansas.

About the Contributors

Cameron W. Piercy , Ph.D

Contribute to this Page

.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:42px;color:#F5F4F3;}@media (max-width: 1120px){.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:12px;}} Join us: Learn how to build a trusted AI strategy to support your company's intelligent transformation, featuring Forrester .css-1ixh9fn{display:inline-block;}@media (max-width: 480px){.css-1ixh9fn{display:block;margin-top:12px;}} .css-1uaoevr-heading-6{font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-1uaoevr-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} .css-ora5nu-heading-6{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:flex-start;justify-content:flex-start;color:#0D0E10;-webkit-transition:all 0.3s;transition:all 0.3s;position:relative;font-size:16px;line-height:28px;padding:0;font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{border-bottom:0;color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover path{fill:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div{border-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div:before{border-left-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active{border-bottom:0;background-color:#EBE8E8;color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active path{fill:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div{border-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div:before{border-left-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} Register now .css-1k6cidy{width:11px;height:11px;margin-left:8px;}.css-1k6cidy path{fill:currentColor;}

• Collaboration |
• Turn your team into skilled problem sol ...

Turn your team into skilled problem solvers with these problem-solving strategies

Picture this, you're handling your daily tasks at work and your boss calls you in and says, "We have a problem." 

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world in which problems are instantly resolved with the snap of our fingers. Knowing how to effectively solve problems is an important professional skill to hone. If you have a problem that needs to be solved, what is the right process to use to ensure you get the most effective solution?

In this article we'll break down the problem-solving process and how you can find the most effective solutions for complex problems.

What is problem solving? 

Problem solving is the process of finding a resolution for a specific issue or conflict. There are many possible solutions for solving a problem, which is why it's important to go through a problem-solving process to find the best solution. You could use a flathead screwdriver to unscrew a Phillips head screw, but there is a better tool for the situation. Utilizing common problem-solving techniques helps you find the best solution to fit the needs of the specific situation, much like using the right tools.

Decision-making tools for agile businesses

In this ebook, learn how to equip employees to make better decisions—so your business can pivot, adapt, and tackle challenges more effectively than your competition.

4 steps to better problem solving

While it might be tempting to dive into a problem head first, take the time to move step by step. Here’s how you can effectively break down the problem-solving process with your team:

1. Identify the problem that needs to be solved

One of the easiest ways to identify a problem is to ask questions. A good place to start is to ask journalistic questions, like:

Who : Who is involved with this problem? Who caused the problem? Who is most affected by this issue?

What: What is happening? What is the extent of the issue? What does this problem prevent from moving forward?

Where: Where did this problem take place? Does this problem affect anything else in the immediate area? 

When: When did this problem happen? When does this problem take effect? Is this an urgent issue that needs to be solved within a certain timeframe?

Why: Why is it happening? Why does it impact workflows?

How: How did this problem occur? How is it affecting workflows and team members from being productive?

Asking journalistic questions can help you define a strong problem statement so you can highlight the current situation objectively, and create a plan around that situation.

Here’s an example of how a design team uses journalistic questions to identify their problem:

Overarching problem: Design requests are being missed

Who: Design team, digital marketing team, web development team

What: Design requests are forgotten, lost, or being created ad hoc.

Where: Email requests, design request spreadsheet

When: Missed requests on January 20th, January 31st, February 4th, February 6th

How : Email request was lost in inbox and the intake spreadsheet was not updated correctly. The digital marketing team had to delay launching ads for a few days while design requests were bottlenecked. Designers had to work extra hours to ensure all requests were completed.

In this example, there are many different aspects of this problem that can be solved. Using journalistic questions can help you identify different issues and who you should involve in the process.

2. Brainstorm multiple solutions

If at all possible, bring in a facilitator who doesn't have a major stake in the solution. Bringing an individual who has little-to-no stake in the matter can help keep your team on track and encourage good problem-solving skills.

Here are a few brainstorming techniques to encourage creative thinking:

Brainstorm alone before hand: Before you come together as a group, provide some context to your team on what exactly the issue is that you're brainstorming. This will give time for you and your teammates to have some ideas ready by the time you meet.

Say yes to everything (at first): When you first start brainstorming, don't say no to any ideas just yet—try to get as many ideas down as possible. Having as many ideas as possible ensures that you’ll get a variety of solutions. Save the trimming for the next step of the strategy. 

Talk to team members one-on-one: Some people may be less comfortable sharing their ideas in a group setting. Discuss the issue with team members individually and encourage them to share their opinions without restrictions—you might find some more detailed insights than originally anticipated.

Break out of your routine: If you're used to brainstorming in a conference room or over Zoom calls, do something a little different! Take your brainstorming meeting to a coffee shop or have your Zoom call while you're taking a walk. Getting out of your routine can force your brain out of its usual rut and increase critical thinking.

3. Define the solution

After you brainstorm with team members to get their unique perspectives on a scenario, it's time to look at the different strategies and decide which option is the best solution for the problem at hand. When defining the solution, consider these main two questions: What is the desired outcome of this solution and who stands to benefit from this solution? 

Set a deadline for when this decision needs to be made and update stakeholders accordingly. Sometimes there's too many people who need to make a decision. Use your best judgement based on the limitations provided to do great things fast.

4. Implement the solution

To implement your solution, start by working with the individuals who are as closest to the problem. This can help those most affected by the problem get unblocked. Then move farther out to those who are less affected, and so on and so forth. Some solutions are simple enough that you don’t need to work through multiple teams.

After you prioritize implementation with the right teams, assign out the ongoing work that needs to be completed by the rest of the team. This can prevent people from becoming overburdened during the implementation plan . Once your solution is in place, schedule check-ins to see how the solution is working and course-correct if necessary.

Implement common problem-solving strategies

There are a few ways to go about identifying problems (and solutions). Here are some strategies you can try, as well as common ways to apply them:

Trial and error

Trial and error problem solving doesn't usually require a whole team of people to solve. To use trial and error problem solving, identify the cause of the problem, and then rapidly test possible solutions to see if anything changes. 

This problem-solving method is often used in tech support teams through troubleshooting.

The 5 whys problem-solving method helps get to the root cause of an issue. You start by asking once, “Why did this issue happen?” After answering the first why, ask again, “Why did that happen?” You'll do this five times until you can attribute the problem to a root cause. 

This technique can help you dig in and find the human error that caused something to go wrong. More importantly, it also helps you and your team develop an actionable plan so that you can prevent the issue from happening again.

Here’s an example:

Problem: The email marketing campaign was accidentally sent to the wrong audience.

“Why did this happen?” Because the audience name was not updated in our email platform.

“Why were the audience names not changed?” Because the audience segment was not renamed after editing. 

“Why was the audience segment not renamed?” Because everybody has an individual way of creating an audience segment.

“Why does everybody have an individual way of creating an audience segment?” Because there is no standardized process for creating audience segments. 

“Why is there no standardized process for creating audience segments?” Because the team hasn't decided on a way to standardize the process as the team introduced new members. 

In this example, we can see a few areas that could be optimized to prevent this mistake from happening again. When working through these questions, make sure that everyone who was involved in the situation is present so that you can co-create next steps to avoid the same problem. 

A SWOT analysis

A SWOT analysis can help you highlight the strengths and weaknesses of a specific solution. SWOT stands for:

Strength: Why is this specific solution a good fit for this problem? 

Weaknesses: What are the weak points of this solution? Is there anything that you can do to strengthen those weaknesses?

Opportunities: What other benefits could arise from implementing this solution?

Threats: Is there anything about this decision that can detrimentally impact your team?

As you identify specific solutions, you can highlight the different strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of each solution. 

This particular problem-solving strategy is good to use when you're narrowing down the answers and need to compare and contrast the differences between different solutions. 

Even more successful problem solving

After you’ve worked through a tough problem, don't forget to celebrate how far you've come. Not only is this important for your team of problem solvers to see their work in action, but this can also help you become a more efficient, effective , and flexible team. The more problems you tackle together, the more you’ll achieve. 

Looking for a tool to help solve problems on your team? Track project implementation with a work management tool like Asana .

Related resources

12 tips for effective communication in the workplace

Unmanaged business goals don’t work. Here’s what does.

How Asana uses work management to drive product development

How Asana uses work management to streamline project intake processes

1 Defining Teams and Groups

The content included in this chapter is adapted from two open university chapters: working in groups and teams and groups and teamwork, what is a group.

Our tendency to form groups is a pervasive aspect of organizational life. In addition to formal groups, committees, and teams, there are informal groups, cliques, and factions.

Formal groups are used to organize and distribute work, pool information, devise plans, coordinate activities, increase commitment, negotiate, resolve conflicts and conduct inquests. Group work allows the pooling of people’s individual skills and knowledge, and helps compensate for individual deficiencies. Estimates suggest most managers spend 50 percent of their working day in one sort of group or another, and for top management of large organizations this can rise to 80 percent. Thus, formal groups are clearly an integral part of the functioning of an organization.

No less important are informal groups. These are usually structured more around the social needs of people than around the performance of tasks.   Informal groups usually serve to satisfy needs of affiliation, and act as a forum for exploring self-concept as a means of gaining support, and so on. However, these informal groups may also have an important effect on formal work tasks, for example by exerting subtle pressures on group members to conform to a particular work rate, or as ‘places’ where news, gossip, etc., is exchanged.

What is a team?

Exploration Activity

Write your own definition of a ‘team’ (in 20 words or less). 

Provide an example of a team working toward an achievable goals

You probably described a team as a group of some kind. However, a team is more than just a group. When you think of all the groups that you belong to, you will probably find that very few of them are really teams. Some of them will be family or friendship groups that are formed to meet a wide range of needs such as affection, security, support, esteem, belonging, or identity. Some may be committees whose members represent different interest groups and who meet to discuss their differing perspectives on issues of interest.

In this reading the term ‘work group’ (or ‘group’) is often used interchangeably with the word ‘team,’ although a team may be thought of as a particularly cohesive and purposeful type of work group. We can distinguish work groups or teams from more casual groupings of people by using the following set of criteria (Adair, 1983). A collection of people can be defined as a work group or team if it shows most, if not all, of the following characteristics:

• A definable membership: a collection of three or more people identifiable by name or type;
• A group identity: the members think of themselves as a group;
• A sense of shared purpose: the members share some common task or goals or interests;
• Interdependence: the members need the help of one another to accomplish the purpose for which they joined the group;
• Interaction: the members communicate with one another, influence one another, react to one another;
• Sustainability: the team members periodically review the team’s effectiveness;
• An ability to act together.

Usually, the tasks and goals set by teams cannot be achieved by individuals working alone because of constraints on time and resources, and because few individuals possess all the relevant competences and expertise. Sports teams or orchestras clearly fit these criteria.

List some examples of teams of which you are a member – both inside and outside work – in your learning file.

Now list some groups .

What strikes you as the main differences?

By contrast, many groups are much less explicitly focused on an external task. In some instances, the growth and development of the group itself is its primary purpose; process is more important than outcome. Many groups are reasonably fluid and less formally structured than teams. In the case of work groups, an agreed and defined outcome is often regarded as a sufficient basis for effective cooperation and the development of adequate relationships. Teamwork is usually connected with project work and this is a feature of much work. Teamwork is particularly useful when you have to address risky, uncertain, or unfamiliar problems where there is a lot of choice and discretion surrounding the decision to be made. In the area of voluntary and unpaid work, where pay is not an incentive, teamwork can help to motivate support and commitment because it can offer the opportunities to interact socially and learn from others (Piercy & Kramer, 2017). Furthermore, people are more willing to support and defend work they helped create (Stanton, 1992).

Importantly, groups and teams are not distinct entities. Both can be pertinent in personal development as well as organizational development and managing change. In such circumstances, when is it appropriate to embark on teambuilding rather than relying on ordinary group or solo working?

In general, the greater the task uncertainty the more important teamwork is, especially if it is necessary to represent the differing perspectives of concerned parties.  In such situations, the facts themselves do not always point to an obvious policy or strategy for innovation, support, and development: decisions are partially based on the opinions and the personal visions of those involved.

There are risks associated with working in teams as well. Under some conditions, teams may produce more conventional, rather than more innovative, responses to problems. The reason for this is that team decisions may regress towards the average, with group pressures to conform cancelling out more innovative decision options (Makin, Cooper, & Cox, 1989). It depends on how innovative the team is, in terms of its membership, its norms, and its values.

Teamwork may also be inappropriate when you want a fast decision. Team decision making is usually slower than individual decision making because of the need for communication and consensus about the decision taken. Despite the business successes of Japanese companies, it is now recognized that promoting a collective organizational identity and responsibility for decisions can sometimes slow down operations significantly, in ways that are not always compensated for by better decision making.

Is a team or group really needed?

There may be times when group working – or simply working alone – is more appropriate and more effective. For example, decision-making in groups and teams is usually slower than individual decision-making because of the need for communication and consensus. In addition, groups and teams may produce conventional rather than innovative responses to problems, because decisions may regress towards the average, with the more innovative decision options being rejected (Makin et al., 1989).

In general, the greater the task uncertainty , that is to say the less obvious and more complex the task to be addressed, the more important it will be to work in a group or team rather than individually. This is because there will be a greater need for different skills and perspectives, especially if it is necessary to represent the different perspectives of the different stakeholders involved.

Table 2 lists some occasions when it will be appropriate to work in teams, in groups or alone.

When to work alone, in groups or in teams

Types of teams

Different organizations or organizational settings lead to different types of team. The type of team affects how that team is managed, what the communication needs of the team are and, where appropriate, what aspects of the project the project manager needs to emphasize. A work group or team may be permanent, forming part of the organization’s structure, such as a top management team, or temporary, such as a task force assembled to see through a particular project. Members may work as a group continuously or meet only intermittently. The more direct contact and communication team members have with each other, the more likely they are to function well as a team. Thus, getting a group to function well is a valuable management aim.

The following section defines common types of team. Many teams may not fall clearly into one type, but may combine elements of different types. Many organizations have traditionally been managed through a hierarchical structure. This general structure is illustrated in Figure 1  below.

The number of levels clearly depends upon the size and to some extent on the type of the organization. Typically, the span of control , the number of people each manager or supervisor is directly responsible for, averages about five people, but this can vary widely. As a general rule it is bad practice for any single manager to supervise more than 7-10 people.

While the hierarchy is designed to provide a stable ‘backbone’ to the organization, projects are primarily concerned with change, and so tend to be organized quite differently. Their structure needs to be more fluid than that of conventional management structures. There are four commonly used types of project team: the functional team, the project (single) team, the matrix team and the contract team.

Why is it problematic for a manager to supervise too many people? How does this relate to groups, is there an ideal group size or configuration?

The project (single) team

The hierarchical structure described above divides groups of people along largely functional lines: people working together carry out the same or similar functions. A functional team is a team in which work is carried out within a group organized around a similar function or task. This can be project work. In organizations in which the functional divisions are relatively rigid, project work can be handed from one functional team to another in order to complete the work. For example, work on a new product can pass from marketing, which has the idea, to research and development, which sees whether it is technically feasible, thence to design and finally manufacturing. This is sometimes known as ‘baton passing’ – or, less flatteringly, as ‘throwing it over the wall’!

The project, or single, team consists of a group of people who come together as a distinct organizational unit in order to work on a project or projects. The team is often led by a project manager, though self-managing and self-organizing arrangements are also found. Quite often, a team that has been successful on one project will stay together to work on subsequent projects. This is particularly common where an organization engages repeatedly in projects of a broadly similar nature – for example developing software, or in construction. Perhaps the most important issue in this instance is to develop the collective capability of the team, since this is the currency for continued success. People issues are often crucial in achieving this.

The closeness of the dedicated project team normally reduces communication problems within the team. However, care should be taken to ensure that communications with other stakeholders (senior management, line managers and other members of staff in the departments affected, and so on) are not neglected, as it is easy for ‘us and them’ distinctions to develop.

The matrix team

In a matrix team , staff report to different managers for different aspects of their work. Matrix structures are often, but not exclusively, found in projects. Matrix structures are more common in large and multi-national organizations. In this structure, staff are responsible to the project manager for their work on the project while their functional line manager may be responsible for other aspects of their work such as appraisal, training, and career development, and ‘routine’ tasks. This matrix project structure is represented in Figure 2. Notice how the traditional hierarchy is cross-cut by the ‘automated widget manufacturing configuration.’

In this form of organization, staff from various functional areas (such as design, software development, manufacturing or marketing) are loaned or seconded to work on a particular project. Such staff may work full- or part-time on the project. The project manager thus has a recognizable team and is responsible for controlling and monitoring its work on the project.

However, many of the project staff will still have other duties to perform in their normal functional departments. The functional line managers they report to will retain responsibility for this work and for the professional standards of their work on the project, as well as for their training and career development. It is important to overcome the problems staff might have with the dual reporting lines (the ‘two-boss’ problem). This requires building good interpersonal relationships with the team members and regular, effective communication.

The contract team

The contract team is brought in from outside in order to do the project work. Here, the responsibility to deliver the project rests very firmly with the project manager. The client will find such a team harder to control directly. On the other hand, it is the client who will judge the success of the project, so the project manager has to keep an eye constantly on the physical outcomes of the project. A variant of this is the so-called ‘outsourced supply team’, which simply means that the team is physically situated remotely from the project manager, who then encounters the additional problem of ‘managing at a distance’.

Mixed structures

Teams often have mixed structures:

• Some members may be employed to work full time on the project and be fully responsible to the project manager. Project managers themselves are usually employed full time.
• Others may work part time, and be responsible to the project manager only during their time on the project. For example, internal staff may well work on several projects at the same time. Alternatively, an external consultant working on a given project may also be involved in a wider portfolio of activities.
• Some may be part of a matrix arrangement, whereby their work on the project is overseen by the project manager and they report to their line manager for other matters. Project administrators often function in this way, serving the project for its duration, but having a career path within a wider administrative service.
• Still others may be part of a functional hierarchy, undertaking work on the project under their line manager’s supervision by negotiation with their project manager. For instance, someone who works in an organization’s legal department may provide the project team with access to legal advice when needed.

In relatively small projects the last two arrangements are a very common way of accessing specialist services that will only be needed from time to time.

Modern teams

In addition to the traditional types of teams or groups outlined above, recent years have seen the growth of interest in three other important types of team: ‘self-managed teams’, ‘self-organizing teams’, and ‘dispersed virtual teams.’

A typical self-managed team may be permanent or temporary. It operates in an informal and non-hierarchical manner, and has considerable responsibility for the way it carries out its tasks. It is often found in organizations that are developing total quality management and quality assurance approaches. The Industrial Society Survey observed that: “Better customer service, more motivated staff, and better quality of output are the three top motives for moving to [self-managed teams], managers report.”

In contrast, organizations that deliberately encourage the formation of self-organizing teams   are comparatively rare. Teams of this type can be found in highly flexible, innovative organizations that thrive on creativity and informality. These are modern organizations that recognize the importance of learning and adaptability in ensuring their success and continued survival. However, self-organizing teams exist, unrecognized, in many organizations. For instance, in traditional, bureaucratic organizations, people who need to circumvent the red tape may get together in order to make something happen and, in so doing, spontaneously create a self-organizing team. The team will work together, operating outside the formal structures, until its task is done and then it will disband.

Table 2 shows some typical features of self-managed and self-organizing teams.

Table 2: Comparing Self-managed and Self-Organizing Teams

Many organizations set up self-managed or empowered teams as an important way of improving performance and they are often used as a way of introducing a continuous improvement approach. These teams tend to meet regularly to discuss and put forward ideas for improved methods of working or customer service in their areas. Some manufacturers have used multi-skilled self-managed teams to improve manufacturing processes, to enhance worker participation and improve morale. Self-managed teams give employees an opportunity to take a more active role in their working lives and to develop new skills and abilities. This may result in reduced staff turnover and less absenteeism.

Self-organizing teams are usually formed spontaneously in response to an issue, idea or challenge. This may be the challenge of creating a radically new product, or solving a tough production problem. In Japan, the encouragement of self-organizing teams has been used as a way of stimulating discussion and debate about strategic issues so that radical and innovative new strategies emerge. By using a self-organizing team approach companies were able to tap into the collective wisdom and energy of interested and motivated employees.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual teams are increasingly common. A virtual team is one whose primary means of communicating is electronic, with only occasional phone and face-to-face communication, if at all. Virtual teams use technologies like, Zoom, Skype, Teams, Basecamp, etc. to coordinate, meet, and share work (Kniffen et al., 2021). Table 3 contains a summary of benefits virtual groups provide to organizations and individuals, as well as the potential challenges and disadvantages virtual groups present.

Table 3. Teams have organizational and individual benefits, as well as possible challenges and disadvantages

Why do (only some) teams succeed?

Clearly, there are no hard-and-fast rules which lead to team effectiveness . The determinants of a successful team are complex and not equivalent to following a set of prescriptions. However, the results of poor teamwork can be expensive, so it is useful to draw on research, experience and case studies to explore some general guidelines. What do I mean by ‘team effectiveness’? – the achievement of goals alone? Where do the achievements of individual members fit in? and How does team member satisfaction contribute to team effectiveness?

Borrowing from Adair’s (1983) leadership model, the left-hand side of Figure 3 shows the main constituents of team effectiveness: the satisfaction of individual membership needs, successful team interaction and the achievement of team tasks. These elements are not discrete, so Figure 3 shows them as overlapping. For example, team member satisfaction will be derived not only from the achievement of tasks but also from the quality of team relationships and the more social aspects of teamworking: people who work almost entirely on their own, such as teleworkers and self-employed business owner-managers, often miss the opportunity to bounce ideas off colleagues in team situations. The experience of solitude in their work can, over time, create a sense of isolation, and impair their performance. The effectiveness of a team should also relate to the next step, to what happens after the achievement of team goals.

The three elements could be reconfigured as an iceberg, most of which is below the water’s surface (the right-hand side of Figure 3). Superficial observation of teams in organizations might suggest that most, if not all, energy is devoted to the explicit task (what is to be achieved, by when, with what budget and what resources). Naturally, this is important. But too often the concealed part of the iceberg (how the team will work together) is neglected. As with real icebergs, shipwrecks can ensue.

For instance, if working in a particular team leaves its members antagonistic towards each other and disenchanted with the organization to the point of looking for new jobs, then it can hardly be regarded as fully effective, even if it achieves its goals. The measure of team effectiveness could be how well the team has prepared its members for the transition to new projects, and whether the members would relish the thought of working with each other again.

In addition to what happens inside a team there are external influences that impact upon team operations. Restated, teams operate in complex systems composed on both internal and external stakeholders, resources, and outcomes. The factors shown in Figure 4 interact with each other in ways that affect the team and its development. We don’t fully understand the  complexity of these interactions and combinations. The best that we can do is discuss each factor in turn and consider some of the interactions between them and how they relate to team effectiveness. For instance, discussions about whether the wider culture of an organization supports and rewards teamworking, whether a team’s internal and/or external customers clearly specify their requirements and whether the expectations of a team match those of its sponsor will all either help or hinder a team’s ongoing vitality.

• Adair, J. (1983) Effective Leadership , Gower.
• Industrial Society (1995) Managing Best Practice: Self Managed Teams . Publication no. 11, May 1995, London, Industrial Society.
• Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., … & Vugt, M. V. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.  American Psychologist ,  76 (1), 63.
• Makin, P., Cooper, C. and Cox, C. (1989) Managing People at Work , The British Psychological Society and Routledge.
• Stanton, A. (1992). Learning from experience of collective teamwork. In Paton R., Cornforth C, and Batsleer, J. (Eds.) Issues in Voluntary and Non-profit Management , pp. 95–103, Addison-Wesley.
• Piercy, C. W., & Kramer, M. W. (2017). Exploring dialectical tensions of leading volunteers in two community choirs.  Communication Studies, 68 , 208-226.

Groups used to organize and distribute work, pool information, devise plans, coordinate activities, increase commitment, negotiate, resolve conflicts and conduct inquests.

Groups not formally sanctioned (by an organization) which serve to satisfy needs of affiliation, and act as a forum for exploring self-concept as a means of gaining support, and so on.

a particularly cohesive and purposeful type of work group

the less obvious and more complex the task to be addressed

the number of people each manager or supervisor is directly responsible for

a group of people who come together as a distinct organizational unit in order to work on a project or projects.

other parties involved or affected by decision a team makes (e.g., customers, co-workers, managers, etc.)

a team in which members report to different managers for different aspects of their work

A team brought in from outside in order to do the project work

A team which operates in an informal and non-hierarchical manner, and has considerable responsibility for the way it carries out its tasks

A team in which members self-select their membership, this type of team is typically marked by an informal work style and little input or direction from senior management. These teams are often formed spontaneously in response to an issue, idea or challenge.

A combination of task achievement, individual success, and positive team interactions across both the task and process dimensions of team work.

A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that interact to form a unified whole. A system is surrounded and influenced by its environment. Systems are described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.

Defining Teams and Groups Copyright © 2021 by Cameron W. Piercy, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

A3 8 Step Practical Problem Solving – Skill Level 1: Knowledge

Purpose – why is problem solving so important, download the top section of the 8 step practical problem solving teach poster to review the “purpose, process & people” sections ..

Each visual from the Teach Poster will be covered in more detail in the below sections.

Problem Solving & the Lean Transformation Framework

Lean Thinking & Practice Starts with question 1 from the Lean Transformation Frame Work

What’s Your Value Driven Purpose?

What situational problems are you trying to solve ?

Key questions you need to answer for your situation :

Have you made the purpose or mission clear to everyone?

Does everyone know their value to create?

Does each person know their specific, situational problem to solve ?

Examples of “problems to solve” that are connected to achieving an organisation’s Value Drive Purpose

“Offer Shortest Customer Key to Key time in Car Dealerships…” – Toyotoshi Canada

“Answer Zara challenge by reducing lead time from 48 days to 10 days…” Zara Clothes Factory

“Redefine publishing in face of Amazon and the whole digital revolution…” Hachette Book Group

“Reshore Production ….” GE Appliances Factory, Louisville, KY USA

“Create flow while providing variety…” Toyota Japan

“Take ½ second out of my 17 second cycle time of work…” Team Member Herman Miller

Asking and clarifying “what is the problem to solve” should be clear BEFORE you:

• Start any improvement to the work.
• Develop people to improve the work.
• Lead people to make improvements.

Everyone should be able understand what “problems they need to solve” and how it’s connected to the value driven purpose of your organisation .

Watch the Teach Point Video On Problem Solving Purpose

Watch Video in full screen mode when possible

Key Learning Points – Purpose

Problems are Good !

Having no problem is the biggest problem of all .

Taiichi Ohno

Once you know you have a problem you can do something about it.

We should see problems as opportunities for improvement, not hide them.

Remain Competitive

Grow the Organisation

Solving problems helps us to be better which helps us to grow and will keep us competitive in our value driven purpose

Develops the people

Teaching/Coaching and using problem solving skills needs to be everyone’s role not just for specialists. Helping people solve problems supports employee engagement.

Develops the organisation

A learning organisation will grow and deliver business results faster, better and cheaper than others.

Now move onto the next Topic .

Kaizen is about changing the way things are. If you assume that things are all right the way they are, you can’t do kaizen. So change something! —Taiichi Ohno

Inspect and Adapt

Inspect & adapt: overview.

The Inspect and Adapt (I&A) is a significant event held at the end of each PI, where the current state of the Solution is demonstrated and evaluated. Teams then reflect and identify improvement backlog items via a structured problem-solving workshop.

The Agile Manifesto emphasizes the importance of continuous improvement through the following principle: “At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.”

In addition, SAFe includes ‘relentless improvement’ as one of the four SAFe Core Values as well as a dimension of the Continuous Learning Culture core competency. While opportunities to improve can and should occur continuously throughout the PI (e.g., Iteration Retrospectives ), applying some structure, cadence, and synchronization helps ensure that there is also time set aside to identify improvements across multiple teams and Agile Release Trains .

All ART stakeholders participate along with the Agile Teams in the I&A event. The result is a set of improvement backlog items that go into the ART Backlog for the next PI Planning event. In this way, every ART improves every PI. A similar I&A event is held by Solution Trains .

The I&A event consists of three parts:

PI System Demo

• Quantitative and qualitative measurement
• Retrospective and problem-solving workshop

Participants in the I&A should be, wherever possible, all the people involved in building the solution. For an ART, this includes:

• The Agile teams
• Release Train Engineer (RTE)
• System and Solution Architects
• Product Management ,  Business Owners , and other stakeholders

Additionally, Solution Train stakeholders may also attend this event.

The PI System Demo is the first part of the I&A, and it’s a little different from the regular system demos after every iteration. This demo shows all the Features the ART has developed during the PI. Typically the audience is broader; for example, Customers or Portfolio representatives are more likely to attend this demo. Therefore, the PI system demo tends to be a little more formal, and extra preparation and setup are usually required. But like any other system demo, it should be timeboxed to an hour or less, with the level of abstraction high enough to keep stakeholders actively engaged and providing feedback.

Before or as part of the PI system demo, Business Owners collaborate with each Agile Team to score the actual business value achieved for each of their Team PI Objectives , as illustrated in Figure 1.

The achievement score is calculated by separately totaling the business value for the plan and actual columns. The uncommitted objectives are not included in the total plan. However, they are part of the total actual. Then divide the actual total by the planned total to calculate the achievement score illustrated in Figure 1.

Quantitative and Qualitative Measurement

In the second part of the I&A event, teams collectively review any quantitative and qualitative metrics they have agreed to collect, then discuss the data and trends. In preparation for this, the RTE and the Solution Train Engineer are often responsible for gathering the information, analyzing it to identify potential issues, and facilitating the presentation of the findings to the ART.

Each team’s planned vs. actual business value is rolled up to create the ART predictability measure, as shown in Figure 2.

Reliable trains should operate in the 80–100 percent range; this allows the business and its external stakeholders to plan effectively. (Note: Uncommitted objectives are excluded from the planned commitment. However, they are included in the actual business value achievement, as can also be seen in Figure 1.)

Retrospective

The teams then run a brief (30 minutes or less) retrospective to identify a few significant issues they would like to address during the problem-solving workshop . There is no one way to do this; several different Agile retrospective formats can be used [3].

Based on the retrospective and the nature of the problems identified, the facilitator helps the group decide which issues they want to tackle. Each team may work on a problem, or, more typically, new groups are formed from individuals across different teams who wish to work on the same issue. This self-selection helps provide cross-functional and differing views of the problem and brings together those impacted and those best motivated to address the issue.

Key ART stakeholders—including Business Owners, customers, and management—join the retrospective and problem-solving workshop teams. The Business Owners can often unblock the impediments outside the team’s control.

Problem-Solving Workshop

The ART holds a structured, root-cause problem-solving workshop to address systemic problems. Root cause analysis provides a set of problem-solving tools used to identify the actual causes of a problem rather than just fixing the symptoms. The RTE typically facilitates the session in a timebox of two hours or less.

Figure 3 illustrates the steps in the problem-solving workshop.

The following sections describe each step of the process.

Agree on the Problem(s) to Solve

American inventor Charles Kettering is credited with saying that “a problem well stated is a problem half solved.” At this point, the teams have self-selected the problem they want to address. But do they agree on the details of the problem, or is it more likely that they have differing perspectives? To this end, the teams should spend a few minutes clearly stating the problem, highlighting the ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘impact’ as concisely as possible. Figure 4 illustrates a well-written problem statement.

Perform Root Cause Analysis

Effective problem-solving tools include the fishbone diagram and the ‘5 Whys.’ Also known as an Ishikawa Diagram , a fishbone diagram is a visual tool to explore the causes of specific events or sources of variation in a process. Figure 5 illustrates the fishbone diagram with a summary of the previous problem statement written at the head of the ‘fish.’

For our problem-solving workshop, the main bones often start with the default categories of people, processes, tools, program, and environment. However, these categories should be adapted as appropriate.

Team members then brainstorm causes that they think contribute to solving the problem and group them into these categories. Once a potential cause is identified, its root cause is explored with the 5 Whys technique. By asking ‘why’ five times, the cause of the previous cause is uncovered and added to the diagram. The process stops once a suitable root cause has been identified, and the same process is then applied to the next cause.

Identify the Biggest Root Cause

Pareto Analysis, also known as the 80/20 rule, is used to narrow down the number of actions that produce the most significant overall effect. It uses the principle that 20 percent of the causes are responsible for 80 percent of the problem. It’s beneficial when many possible courses of action compete for attention, which is almost always the case with complex, systemic issues.

Once all the possible causes-of-causes are identified, team members then cumulatively vote on the item they think is the most significant factor contributing to the original problem. They can do this by dot voting. For example, each person gets five votes to choose one or more causes they think are most problematic. The team then summarizes the votes in a Pareto chart, such as the example in Figure 6, which illustrates their collective consensus on the most significant root cause.

Restate the New Problem

The next step is to pick the cause with the most votes and restate it clearly as a problem. Restating it should take only a few minutes, as the teams clearly understand the root cause.

Brainstorm Solutions

At this point, the restated problem will start to imply some potential solutions. The team brainstorms as many possible corrective actions as possible within a fixed timebox (about 15–30 minutes). The rules of brainstorming apply here:

• Generate as many ideas as possible
• Do not allow criticism or debate
• Let the imagination soar
• Explore and combine ideas

Create Improvement Backlog Items

The team then cumulatively votes on up to three most viable solutions. These potential solutions are written as improvement stories and features, planned in the following PI Planning event. During that event, the RTE helps ensure that the relevant work needed to deliver the identified improvements is planned. This approach closes the loop, thus ensuring that action will be taken and that people and resources are dedicated as necessary to improve the current state.

Following this practice, problem-solving becomes routine and systematic, and team members and ART stakeholders can ensure that the train is solidly on its journey of relentless improvement.

Inspect and Adapt for Solution Trains

The above describes a rigorous approach to problem-solving in the context of a single ART. If the ART is part of a Solution Train, the I&A event will often include key stakeholders from the Solution Train. In larger value streams, however, an additional Solution Train I&A event may be required, following the same format.

Due to the number of people in a Solution Train, attendees at the large solution I&A event cannot include everyone, so stakeholders are selected that are best suited to address the problems. This subset of people consists of the Solution Train’s primary stakeholders and representatives from the various ARTs and Suppliers .

Last update: 22 January 2023

Privacy Overview

• (855) 776-7763

Knowledge Base

Survey Maker

All Products

Qualaroo Insights

ProProfs.com

• Get Started Free

Do you want a free Project Management?

We have the #1 Online Project Management Software for effective project management.

Problem Solving Activities to Improve Team Creativity

Richi Gupta

Lead Product Analyst

Review Board Member

Richi Gupta, a Lead Product Analyst, excels in systems integration and translating complex business needs into actionable tech strategies. Her attention to detail, coupled with exemplary project management skills, drive ... Read more

Richi Gupta, a Lead Product Analyst, excels in systems integration and translating complex business needs into actionable tech strategies. Her attention to detail, coupled with exemplary project management skills, drive her success in product feedback management, competitive analysis, strategic planning, and budget management. As a valued member of the ProProfs Survey Maker Advisory Board, Richi's primary objective is to deliver precise and coherent content, ensuring alignment with the company's strategic vision and objectives. Read less

Project Management Expert

David Miller, a seasoned Senior Project Manager at ProProfs with over two decades of diverse expertise, shares impactful insights on project management, leadership, and personal development through his writing.

“Every problem has a solution. You just have to be creative enough to find it.”                                                                                                               – Travis Kalanick

Problem-solving is a skill that undoubtedly comes into play to improve creativity, execute and deliver projects delightfully. Strong problem-solving skills to improve creativity is a crucial asset for any team. Whether you’re a manager or fresher, easy problem-solving tactics will help you glide over tough decision-making faster and approach problems smartly.

For example, in project management, your team might find itself questioning things like “How would we handle tight deadlines while maintaining the quality consistently?” or “How do we ensure that we effectively track progress on multiple projects?”.

These are common challenges that are bound to arise on the job. However, being prepared and having the ability to handle difficult or unexpected situations is what will guide you to the end.

Luckily, there are many ways to develop problem-solving skills to create innovative solutions. Here’s how one can rewire the brain for problem solving and creativity. Let’s start with the basics!

What Are Problem Solving Activities?

Simply put, problem-solving activities are activities that help in building the capability to solve problems and overcome challenges. While finding effective solutions to complex problems isn’t easy, a step-by-step process of solving the problem at hand ensures that you implement the most effective solution.

One can resolve almost any problem by using the right techniques learned through various problem-solving exercises. All processes of problem-solving begin with identifying and defining the problem. Thereafter, one evaluates the possible course of action and selects the best approach for solving the problem.

For example, if you are starting an online store and have listed down all possible problems that can arise in the process, with the right problem-solving techniques you cannot only eliminate those issues but also can bring out the best possible solution to help you scale and grow. 

Problem-solving activities are highly sought-after activities that help in imbibing key problem-solving skills.

Let’s take a look at these skills.

• Analytical skills
• Adaptability, Quick thinking ability
• Logical reasoning
• Communication skills
• Perseverance, Motivation skills
• Collaboration
• Team skills
• Cooperation
• Decision-making skills, Leadership skills
• Visual perception skills
• Critical thinking skills, Negotiation skills

Read More: Excel in Project Execution With These 5 Surefire Tips

The Importance of Developing Problem Solving Skills in Today’s Workplace

You may question: How will I benefit from developing problem-solving skills in my team members? Are these skills important for my team to attain business goals?

Well, have you ever found yourself saying, “Let’s think outside the box for this project” to your team? We are certain that you have, and that is exactly why you need to understand what it takes to level up your team’s ability to convert problems into actionable solutions for the team to succeed together. After all, company performance is closely tied to improving team members’ problem-solving skills.

Good problem-solving skills encourage quick and creative thinking, leading to better decision-making and ultimately increased company growth. Teams and leaders who approach problems thoughtfully perform better and find realistic solutions.

Let’s take a step back and understand ‘ What it takes ?’ to level up your team’s ability to convert problems into actionable solutions.

The secret to a thriving business lies in solving problems effectively. This is where good teams outshine the mediocre ones, isn’t it?

So how do the good teams do it?

Good teams approach problems in a fresh and creative manner at every step of the way. They have learned how to generate ideas and come up with out-of-the-box solutions. 

Guess what they have mastered?

Yes, problem-solving skills!

Here are a few advantages that you should expect from your teams that have acquired problem-solving skills:

1. Better risk handling

Managing risk means acknowledging that undesired or uncertain events may occur at any stage of the process. Problem-solving skills help in being confident of your capability to turn risks into opportunities by going beyond the expected.

2. Better communication

Problem-solving skills equip you with solving issues in a way that minimizes accusations and brings about a resolution regarding the problem. This efficient approach helps foster intra-team communication eventually leading to better understanding.

3. Improved productivity output

Adopting problem-solving techniques at the workplace has a positive impact on total productivity . Problem-solving skills help in implementing solutions in an effective and timely manner without any hindrance.

4. A proactive mindset

A proactive mindset enables identifying and executing the solution to a specific problem. Defining, generating, evaluating, and selecting the best solution is possible only when one has mastered the problem-solving skill.

Remember that not all problems are the same. Moreover, it is unlikely that the same solution will work each time for a particular problem. Scope and type of problems will vary according to the size, type, and goals of an organization. Likewise, solutions will be different for each. Thus, problem-solving skills are absolutely invaluable at the workplace.

20 Fun Problem Solving Activities to Improve Creativity

Problem-solving activities help in developing the skill of problem-solving by practicing exercises to equip a team or an individual with a convincing ability to handle and overcome problems and challenges. The below activities guide through the set of actions, approaches, and processes that one should undertake for devising strategies for solving a problem creatively.

1. Dumbest Idea First

Helps With: Creative problem solving

Why is creative problem solving important for problem-solving?

Creative problem solving allows you to relax your assumptions and approach a problem in an imaginative, unconventional way. The skill focuses on divergent thinking, thus redefining problem-solving.

What you’ll need: Nothing!

Directions:

Yes, this is an important activity for problem-solving. Encourage everyone to voice the absolute random and dumb solution to the problem in front of them. Who knows, you might just get an idea that can be shaped into an effective solution.

Come to think of it, most successful start-up ideas once seemed like the dumbest!

2. 40-20-10-5 

Helps With: Analytical skill

Why is an analytical skill important for problem-solving?

Analytical skill helps in assessing information and finding solutions using knowledge, facts, and data. This skill ensures that any solutions you implement are backed up logically and have been adequately thought out.

To apply this rule, explain your problem in 40 words. Cut it down to 20, then to 10, and finally to 5 words. This 5-word problem statement is the root of your problem and maybe even the solution!

3. Brainstorm Ideas

Helps With: Lateral Thinking

Why is Lateral Thinking important for problem-solving?

Lateral Thinking involves generating ideas using an indirect and creative approach that is not immediately obvious. It deals in insight restructuring and consciously coming up with alternative solutions for the given problem.

Brainstorming ideas is a powerful and one of the best problem-solving activities to get your team’s creative juices flowing.

The purpose of this activity is to produce as many new and creative ideas as possible.

Once the list of ideas is ready, you can then go on to explore the feasibility of each idea to arrive at the most suitable one.

4. Gamification

Helps With: Perseverance, Motivation skill

Why is perseverance important for problem-solving?

Perseverance is being absolute in purpose to continue in the pursuit of an idea or a goal despite setbacks and roadblocks. The quality is a given if you wish to develop the skill of problem-solving.

Why is motivation skill important for problem-solving?

Motivational skills can be defined as actions or strategies that elicit a desired behavior or response. To solve a problem, deriving self-motivation to get to the core of the problem is foremost.

We all have heard the phrase, “Work Hard, Play harder”. Guess it’s time to incorporate it into your work routine!

Gamification will turn ‘work’ into an entertaining and fun activity. You are required to set different types of rules and objectives for the team which they have to follow to earn desirable rewards that will let them win the game or should we say, solve the problem?

5. Shrinking Vessel

Helps With: Adaptability, Quick thinking ability

Why is adaptability important for problem-solving?

Organizations that can adapt quickly have an obvious advantage over their competitors as they have conditioned themselves to effortlessly adapt to changing circumstances while facing problems.

Why is quick thinking ability important for problem-solving?

If you are a quick thinker, that means that you act on problems easily, while being efficient and accurate in thought.

What you’ll need: A Rope/String

A Shrinking Vessel is a problem-solving activity with a simple concept. The idea is that you are in a situation of a sinking ship.

There is a predetermined space for the activity and the teams are divided equally. The entire team must work together to occupy a space, marked with a rope/string, that shrinks over time. It is the perfect game to bond with your teammates and craft a stellar creative strategy to be the last one standing.

6. Egg Drop Idea

Helps With: Logical reasoning

Why is logical reasoning important for problem-solving?

Logical reasoning measures your ability to reason logically by observing and analyzing circumstances. Logical reasoning aids in arriving at a rational conclusion about how to proceed.

What you’ll need: newspaper, plastic wrap, cotton, socks, and a handkerchief

The egg drop project involves designing a package or a container with everyday items that will keep an egg intact when dropped from a height.

Sounds fascinating, right?

It sure is! You can use whatever items or construction material you find around you and deem fit to save an egg. Some items that you may find around easily are newspaper, plastic wrap, cotton, socks, and handkerchief.

Reach out for these and more to save your egg!

Helps With: Communication

Why is communication important for problem-solving?

Being an effective communicator is essential to succeed and progress at the workplace. This is because one needs to successfully communicate ideas and recommendations for daily tasks and projects.

What you’ll need: Lego pieces

This is one of the most interesting team-building activities. This activity is all about observation and retention of design. For this activity, select an impartial individual to construct a random figurine using Legos in under 5 minutes.

Next, the competing teams have to replicate this structure in 10 minutes.

Sounds easy, right? Well, there’s a catch!

Only one person is allowed to look at the figurine at a time. The person has to then communicate the parameters like size, shape, color, etc. to his/her team members. Now, that’s some team-building activity!

8. Stranded

Helps With: Decision-making skill

Why is decision-making skill important for problem-solving?

Problem-solving and decision-making skills go hand in hand at work. Decision-making is an ongoing process in every organization whether big or small. Decision-making skills help in choosing between two or more alternatives to arrive at the best solution to implement.

What you’ll need: A room that can be locked

The setting is that your team will be locked in a room and will be given 30 minutes to choose 10 items that they will need for survival. Also, the items have to be chronologically listed.

9. Reverse the Pyramid

Helps With: Adaptability, Collaboration

Having adaptability skills means embracing problems with optimism. Adaptability reflects your willingness to respond to changing circumstances.

Why is collaboration important for problem-solving?

In the words of Peter Senge, “Collectively, we can be more insightful, more intelligent than we can possibly be individual”.

Collaboration facilitates the free exchange of ideas, knowledge, perspectives, and experiences leading to enhanced innovation.

This is one of the best problem-solving exercises for teams.

Make a team. Ask everyone to stand in the shape of a pyramid. Next, ask them to flip the base and the apex moving only 3 people.

Whichever team moves and forms the reverse pyramid fastest wins the activity.

10. Word on the Street

Helps With: Team skills

Why are team skills important for problem-solving?

Building strong team skills enables team members to come together for a common purpose. Employing team skills for problem-solving is a hallmark of high-performing teams.

It’s a fairly simple technique that involves interviewing all team members to gain their perspective on the solution that has been arrived at for a specific problem.

11. Human Knot

Helps With: Collaboration, Communication skills

Why are communication skills important for problem-solving?

When teams come together to solve a problem, no problem is big enough. Together, a team can overcome even the most difficult of obstacles. Active listening skills are an important element of communication skills.

Get ready for an entertaining problem-solving group activity!

Make everyone stand in a circle. Next, ask each one to hold hands with two people who aren’t directly standing next to them.

Now, ask them to untangle themselves and form a circle without letting go of anyone’s hand. Believe us, it’s going to be super fun watching them twist and turn to form the perfect circle.

12. Marshmallow Spaghetti Tower

Helps With: Collaboration

What you’ll need: Uncooked spaghetti, 1 marshmallow, tape, and a string/thin rope

In this activity, you simply have to make the tallest tower within the set amount of time.

You’re given a handful of supplies to work with. Your task is to build the tallest free-standing tower that supports a marshmallow at the top of the tower! You’re given 18 minutes to complete the challenge.

13. Minefield

Helps With: Team skill, Trust

Why is trust important for problem-solving?

A well-analyzed solution will fail if the team lacks trust while implementing the solution. Building trust within the team is the first step towards problem-solving.

What you’ll need: An empty room, blindfolds, common office items like table, chair, bag, bottle

Place some objects like a table, chair, bag, bottle, etc. on the floor to act as obstacles in this activity.

Divide teams into pairs and blindfold one of them. The person who is not blindfolded has to verbally guide the person in blindfolds to the other end of the room, avoiding the ‘mines’.

14. Bonding Belt

Helps With: Cooperation

Why is cooperation important for problem-solving?

Cooperation for problem-solving means being part of a cooperative team that identifies and listens to each other’s perspectives on the proposed solution and works together as a team.

What you’ll need: A firm rope

Make teams of 5-6 people. Tie them together by a firm rope, tightly wrapped around their waists. Ask them to move as one unit from point A to point B in as short a time as possible. The teams have to ensure they stay ‘bonded’ as one unit.

15. Frostbite

Helps With: Decision-making skill, Leadership skill

Why is leadership skill important for problem-solving?

Leadership involves keeping the team aligned, energized, and focused on a common business goal. The ability to stimulate, challenge, and inspire others to devise creative solutions is what adds up to leadership skills .

What you’ll need: An electric fan, a packet of construction materials like card stock, rubber bands, and sticky notes, etc, a blindfold

The scenario for this creative problem-solving activity is that your team is on arctic exploration. You have to separate everyone into different teams of 4-5 members. Each team will choose a leader among themselves who will lead them on this activity. The teams have to construct a shelter to protect themselves from the storm that will hit in precisely 30 minutes. The catch is that the team leaders will not work as they can’t move their hands due to frostbite. Further, all other team members are temporarily blind due to snow blindness. After the time is up, you can turn on the fan and see whose shelter can endure the high winds of the storm. Come on, let’s see which team withstands the snowstorm!

16. Idea Mock-Up

Helps With: Analytical skill, Decision making skill

In this activity, the solutions to your problems are supposed to be projected via mock-ups to ascertain the best solution for the given problem. This enables receiving the most accurate feedback on the proposed solutions.

17. Futures Wheel

Helps With: Visual perception skill

Why is visual perception skill important for problem-solving?

Visual perception skills are the ability to make sense of what the eyes see. It involves organizing and interpreting the information and giving it meaning.

What you’ll need: Pen and paper

If you’re looking to explore the structural consequences of a proposed solution, then this activity is your best bet.

You start with writing the name of the topic in the center. Next, you form the first layer of the wheel with consequences to the solutions. In the next layer, you may go deep into the consequences of these consequences themselves. Jot these down in the order of importance. Analyze each aspect and complete this activity within a time period of about 30 minutes.

This visual technique will make it easier for you to outline the best method to go ahead with to attain the desired outcome.

18. Be a Character

Helps With: Initiative

Why is initiative important for problem-solving?

Taking initiative is the ability to independently assess problems and initiate action to attain solutions. It is a self-management skill and requires rational persistence to be able to solve a problem successfully.

Fancied being an imaginary character from a movie or block? Or just fancied being a famous personality?

Well, now is the time to bring out your inner persona and approach the given problem with the outlook and the perspective of the character or person who you’ve always admired. Embody the character for 15 minutes and see how you approach the situation at hand.

19. End in Mind

According to Dr. Stephen R. Covey, all things are created twice – first in the mind and then in the real world.

Logical reasoning helps you reason through ideas and decisions following a series of steps to conclude. This approach leads to efficient problem-solving.

The end in mind activity allows you to question the ‘What’, ‘Why’, and ‘How’ of any problem. It brings purpose and clarity to the solution you seek. You basically backtrack your way into finding a solution.

20. Stop, Start, Continue

Helps With: Critical thinking skill, Negotiation skill

Why is critical thinking important for problem-solving?

Critical thinking refers to the ability to use knowledge, facts, and data to effectively share thoughts and make justifiable decisions. The skill includes analyzing information and formulating creative solutions to complex problems.

Why is negotiation skill important for problem-solving?

Having negotiation skills does not mean that you give in or instantly compromise every time someone disagrees with you. Having this skill means demonstrating open-mindedness to prospects and team members. Active listening is crucial to develop this skill.

A Stop, Start, Continue Approach is a feedback framework made up of three things that a team should stop doing, three things that a team should start doing, and three things that a team should continue doing as they move forward to achieve their problem-solving objectives.

The purpose of the above-listed activities is to train your mind to think about how to solve a problem in new ways and for greater success. The purpose is also to have some fun through these activities while upgrading your skills.

Read More: How to Solve Project Management Problems in The Modern Workplace

The 10-Step Process of Problem Solving Ability

This simple 10-step process will guide you in solving problems to improve creativity.

• Define the Problem
• Analyze the Problem
• Specify Underlying Causes
• Brainstorm Ideas
• List Possible Solutions
• Create Solution Mock-Ups
• Measure the Business Impact
• Establish the Best Possible Solution
• Implement the Solution
• Evaluate Progress

Read More: 16 Best Project Management Softwares for Creative Teams

The Four P’s to Problem Solving

The problem-solving process is cyclic in nature. This is because there are bound to arise new problems while managing a project that accordingly demands new solutions.

This is where you measure, understand, and diagnose the problem that you wish to solve. The activities 40-20-10-5 and Dumbest idea first help in initiating a problem-solving process.

This is where you organize everything and generate possibilities through activities like Brainstorming and Word of mouth .

This is where you visualize and execute your plan. Activities like Futures wheel and Stop, start, continue fall in this stage of problem-solving.

This is where you analyze the solution and check for further improvement. Stranded and Shrinking Vessel are the activities that develop decision-making skills leading to problem-solving.

Face Challenges Head-on With Quick and Easy Problem Solving Activities

Doesn’t it look like it’s all under control now? Well, to be perfectly honest, it takes time and practice to be an effective problem solver.

The way we approach problems at the workplace can be improved by indulging in proven activities that help build problem-solving skills to improve creativity.

Once you have covered the basics of how to go about the problem-solving process and have a can-do mindset, we are sure that there is absolutely nothing that can deter you from confronting problems head-on.

The listed activities are the easiest mechanism to follow to master the skill of effective problem-solving at the workplace. This course of action will enable you to exert full control towards sure shot success in improving creativity with constructive problem-solving activities.

Do you want a free Project Management Software?

About the author

David miller.

David is a Project Management expert. He has been published in elearningindustry.com , simpleprogrammer.com . As a project planning and execution expert at ProProfs, he has offered a unique outlook on improving workflows and team efficiency. Connect with David for more engaging conversations on Twitter , LinkedIn , and Facebook .

Popular Posts in This Category

What are Project Constraints and How to Manage Them

10 Surefire Ways to Improve Team Communication

Project Scope: How to Define & Manage It Like a Pro

How to Become a Project Manager and Succeed in the Business World

Agile Planning: What Is, Its Characteristics, & How It Works

10 Tips to Increase Productivity in the Workplace

Branching Minds now offers district partners the ability to systematically identify students who need more behavior support using the SRSS-IE universal screener . Learn more >>

• Improve Academic Achievement
• Whole Child Support & Wellness
• Communication, Collaboration, & Engagement
• Teacher Satisfaction & Retention
• Cost-Effective & Efficient Systems
• Professional Learning Series
• Customized Coaching
• The MTSS Learning Hub
• The MTSS Success Package
• Success Stories
• Testimonials
• MTSS Hall of Fame
• Pathfinders Community
• Schoolin' Around Podcast
• Quick Access to Guides & Toolkits
• MTSS Quizzes
• Funding & Grants
• Sign Up for Our Newsletter
• Summer 2024 MTSS Mini-Summit
• 2023 Professional Learning Retreat
• MTSS Summit 2023
• MTSS Summit 2022
• Our Approach
• Data Privacy Practices
• Meet Our Team
• Awards & Accolades

Developing a Successful MTSS/RTI Team

Print/Save as PDF

The MTSS/RTI team is a school-based, problem-solving team; it is the engine that drives the MTSS/RTI practice. The MTSS/RTI team exists to proactively address system needs by reviewing school-wide data (within grade levels and classrooms) and support individual student growth by helping to monitor progress and make decisions for students at Tier 3. The site administrator should play an active role in recruiting and ultimately designating the composition of the MTSS/RTI team. The most successful teams consist of volunteers, so it is important that site administrators make an effort to designate members who truly want to be involved. MTSS/RTI team membership is made up of both standing members who contribute expertise from their respective disciplines and those who may be invited to address a specific concern. Examples of standing members on the MTSS/RTI team include: administrator, general education teacher, school psychologist/counselor, dean, content area specialist, ELL teacher, special education teacher, and grade-level or department representatives. 
 

How to Develop a Successful School Level MTSS/RTI Team?

Whether developing a team for the first time, filling open “positions,” or refining your current team dynamics, it is important to spend time reflecting on individual and group qualities that make for a success team. In order to do this, we must have a good understanding of what the team does, what individual characteristics help make the team successful, what skills the team members need to bring to the group, and what expectations can be established to help the team be successful, which we will cover below.

What Are the Responsibilities of the MTSS/RTI Team?

In a typical school, the MTSS/RTI team meets regularly with a structured agenda that varies throughout the month to: 

• Review universal screening data;
• Review school-wide data, consider feedback and concerns from PLCs/grade or content teams, and make data-based decisions;
• Provide input on professional development as it relates to the school’s MTSS/RTI practice and Tier 1 needs; 

• Provide input regarding school site intervention/enrichment schedule, curriculum, and/or course offerings; 

• Support grade levels/departments in serving students during intervention blocks in collaboration with general education teachers; 

• Discuss and communicate with the site administrator on issues relevant to the MTSS/RTI process; 

• Consult and collaborate with administrators, counselors, teachers and parents about MTSS/RTI
, problem-solving practice, and procedural integrity; 

• Hold problem-solving meetings (that include parents) for individual students; 

• Refer students for comprehensive special education evaluations when data indicate this step is warranted.

What Are the Characteristics of Effective MTSS/RTI Team Members?

MTSS is a system level practice, therefore, an MTSS team should consist of educators capable of leading system level change and management. According to the work of Chenoweth and Everhart (2002), effective leadership teams consists of individuals possessing the following characteristics:

• they are committed to school-wide change;
• they are respected by colleagues;
• they possess leadership potential;
• they demonstrate effective interpersonal skills; and
• they are self-starters with perseverance to see projects through

To promote a healthy school climate, the MTSS/RTI team, like any leadership team, should reflect the diversity of the staff, students, and broader community. In addition, the team members should bring a diversity of skills and expertise to best fill out the responsibilities of different roles. 

What Roles & Responsibilities Do MTSS/RTI Team Members Hold?

Successful teams clearly articulate everyone’s roles and responsibilities so people are adequately able to prepare for what is expected of them and bring their best to the team. The following are typical roles and responsibilities that should be explicitly assigned to members of the MTSS/RTI team, given individual strengths and abilities:

• Provides leadership at MTSS/RTI team meetings
• Facilitates monitoring of instructional integrity within grade levels/departments
• 
Ensures progress monitoring for all students in Tiers 2 and 3 (both for students with IEPs and those without IEPs) 
 
• Ensures school schedule and resource allocation enables a successful MTSS practice
• Celebrates and communicates success
• Coordinates and sets agenda for MTSS/RTI team meetings
• Provides expertise to MTSS/RTI team regarding problem-solving protocol 
• Provides expertise in data analysis 
• Identifies trends in student/staff need across school
• Serves as a liaison between PLC/grade-level/department team and MTSS/RTI team 

• Attends grade level PLC/MTSS/RTI meetings on a regular basis
• Identifies trends in student/staff need across grade-level or content area
• Presents data/background information on student being discussed (in absence of classroom teacher)

• Provides expertise to MTSS/RTI team regarding interventions and skill remediation
• Supports MTSS/RTI team with data interpretation and ensures linkage of data to selected interventions 
• Gathers progress monitoring data from PLCs and Tier 3 interventionists for review during MTSS/RTI meetings
• Consults/collaborates with classroom teachers regarding differentiated instruction 
• Provides experience with and knowledge of student being discussed
• Presents data/background information on student
• Ensures next steps are documented and communicated with student and/or family

How Can a Team Be Set up for Success?

According to the Center for Collaborative Education , the following areas and questions should be considered:

• How often do we need to meet in order to do our work?
• Where and when will we meet?
• What equipment/tools do we use to facilitate our meetings?
• How long should our meetings be?
• Will we start on time or wait for any late team members?
• What is our plan for addressing tardiness and attendance of team members?
• How will we show respect for each other?
• How will we encourage active listening?
• How will we encourage everyone’s participation?
• What is our decision-making process?
• Is consensus needed for decision-making?
• How do we document and communicate our decisions?
• How can we ensure workload is distributed?
• How do we help each other balance our MTSS team work with other school responsibilities?
• How do we prioritize our workload?
• How will we make sure that tasks are completed on time?
• Enforcement of norms
• How do we hold ourselves accountable to these norms?
• What is our plan if norms are not followed?

In addition to clearly communicating individual roles and responsibilities, healthy and successful teams have a shared understanding of how they are expected to function as a group. While some groups develop these expectations or understandings organically, it should not be assumed that everyone is aligned. Clearly articulating expectations, or operational norms, will help promote a healthier team dynamic.

References:

Chenoweth, T. G., & Everhart, R. B. (2002). Navigating comprehensive school change: A guide for the perplexed. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Dr. Eva Dundas

Dr. Dundas is the Chief Learning Officer of Branching Minds, where she pursues her mission to bridge the gap between the science of learning and education practice. Dr. Dundas has a Ph.D. in Developmental and Cognitive Psychology from Carnegie Mellon University where she conducted research on how the brain develops when children acquire visual expertise for words and faces. Her research also explores how the relationship between neural systems (specifically language and visual processing) unfolds over development, and how those dynamics differ with neurodevelopmental disorders like dyslexia and autism. She has published articles on that subject in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuropsychologia, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, and Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Dr. Dundas also has a M.Ed. in Mind, Brain, and Education from Harvard University; and a B.S. in Neuroscience from the University of Pittsburgh.

Connect with Dr. Eva Dundas

Related posts.

Tagged: Instituting MTSS , Leadership in MTSS

Comments (0)

Why Schools Need to Change Purpose and Problem-Solving: Developing Leaders in the Classroom

Taiwo A. Togun (he, him, his) Faculty, Pierrepont School, and Co-Founder & Executive Director, InclusionBridge, Inc. in Connecticut

Today’s learners face an uncertain present and a rapidly changing future that demand far different skills and knowledge than were needed in the 20th century. We also know so much more about enabling deep, powerful learning than we ever did before. Our collective future depends on how well young people prepare for the challenges and opportunities of 21st-century life.

As educators transform learning in their classrooms, they can develop their students ’ talent and their own leadership while also making a difference for their community.

“Purpose is a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and consequential to the world beyond the self” –Bill Damon, Professor of Education, Stanford University

As an educator, my purpose is to nurture and develop young talents. While I have been teaching for over a decade, I only articulated my purpose as an educator last year during my master’s program in technology leadership while learning to integrate technology, strategy, and leadership. Coincidentally, I became a Project Invent fellow at the same time, which only served to embolden my sense of purpose. Clarity of purpose is a vital leadership quality that shapes my experience and something I believe ought to begin every teacher’s leadership journey. While one’s articulation of purpose may change over time, there’s something quite powerful and differently effective about writing down and reading out loud your purpose statement. In the following reflection, my goal is to share how I approach my development as an educator and a leader as one and the same and how my experience with Project Invent’s design thinking curriculum represents a continuing education in leadership.

Developing a Leadership Identity

As I work toward establishing my leadership identity and persona as an educator, I find myself reflecting on Sun Tzu’s Art Of War in which he described “ Leadership [as] a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline. ” Additional discourses from the likes of Thomas Carlyle , Tolstoy , and Plato have all helped me arrive at an understanding of leadership as a function of nature, nurture, and situation . In addition to clarity of purpose, other leadership qualities must be deliberately nurtured through training and cultivated through practicing acts of leadership. I believe an effective leader empowers others and recognizes situations when the act of leadership is, in fact, letting others lead. This summarizes the core takeaway of my “teacher as a leader” philosophy.

In 2021, I applied to Project Invent’s educator fellowship , hoping to reinforce my leadership identity as an educator. Project Invent is a nonprofit organization that trains educators in six key teacher practices, each aimed at empowering students with the mindsets to become fearless, compassionate, and creative problem solvers. As a Project Invent Fellow, I have made significant progress in mastering these six teacher practices:

• Make failure okay
• Push to the next level
• Be a co-learner
• Let students take the wheel
• Leave room for exploration
• Challenge assumptions

Courtesy of Project Invent

Leadership in Practice

Each of these teacher practices can occur independently but are often interrelated. Deliberately committing to one can undoubtedly lead to others. For example, being comfortable with being a co-learner allows space for leaving room for exploration of alternatives. Openness to the possibility of new alternatives begets making failure okay and also encourages letting students take the wheel and drive the process, while the teacher-leader nudges them to push to the next level. Of course, the order of these is not fixed.

I teach computer science at Pierrepont School in Westport, Connecticut. My Project Invent student teams come from two classes of juniors and seniors, who originally signed up for an Applied Data Science course. We began our journey in the second semester in January, after which the students were informed that their course name had changed from “Applied Data Science” to “Essential Skills of the Emerging Economy” which has two parts: “Critical Reasoning & Storytelling with Data” and “Human-centered Problem-solving.” These are the only details my brave students had to work with. Needless to say, students had to be open-minded about how the journey would shape up. After all, it is not the first time that I would modify course requirements to marry interests and new opportunities that would benefit my students. I enjoy such flexibility and reasonable autonomy at my school; I also enjoy the flexibility and reasonable autonomy of learning as I teach. I am comfortable admitting to my students that I have absolutely no idea how to solve a challenge that I assign them, but assure them we can figure it out together… and we always do.

In January, the challenge was dauntingly ambiguous: We were going to invent a new technology intended to positively impact members of our community. Given their awareness of how little I knew about what we might need, or how to invent anything for that matter, students had to buy into taking a journey with an uncertain destination together. My job as a co-learner was to make sure to emphasize that it was all about the journey, the lessons, and the fun we have; and not necessarily the end. The humility and willingness to be a co-learner with students in the driver's seat have served me very well throughout my journey as a teacher, and I can not begin to describe the gratification of learning with and from students and seeing them rise to the challenge. This time, however, we had access to a community of resources, fellows, and mentors through the extended Project Invent team, who made it even more reassuring despite the many unknowns. From the onset of our journey, my students demonstrated creative confidence and trust in one another (most of the time) and our system as a class. Together as a team, we were ready and excited for the journey.

“Coming into this class with a limited computer science background, I was a little intimidated to embark on a project that had the potential to create such a big and meaningful improvement in our community. However, as I grew more comfortable with my team, my fears eased. I was able to develop from a quiet listener to a confident doer, not only for the duration of this project but also in my longer-term data science pursuits.” –Alexis Bienstock, Pierrepont School Junior

Project Invent as Context for Leadership Development

Human-centeredness brings a new dimension to problem-solving. It helps to establish and define a worthy purpose. My students and I began our journey on our Project Invent experience by getting to know our “client” Roderick Sewell , a Paralympic athlete and swimmer, as a person—what he enjoys doing, how he got to become a serious athlete, and what his goals and aspirations are. We focused on his abilities, accomplishments, and strengths. This set the stage for helping us—students and teachers alike—cultivate mindsets of empathy and curiosity. It is this empathic curiosity that would eventually lead to two Project Invent teams of ambitious students, who set out to address Roderick’s expressed challenges of lower back pain and efficient switch from running to walking legs:

“Because there’s nothing to absorb the load except for my lower back…If there was a little more cushioning on the soles to absorb the impact, then everything would be even more doable.” “ I can’t really run with my walking leg. One question that I always have is if something happened, how fast would I be able to get up and get away? ” –Roderick Sewell

Team SNAILS, a team of one senior and five juniors, proposed and prototyped an invention they called Quick Switch Support Shoe (“QS-cubed”), a multifunctional prosthetic foot support with adjustable springs to minimize back pain and maximize run-walk efficiency for their community partner.

Team Pierrepont Innovators with three seniors and four juniors had the ambitious goal of completely redesigning Roderick’s prosthetic ankle with a dashpot or snubber mechanism and incorporating more effective shock-absorbing materials. They wrestled with disappointments as they came to terms with reality and time constraints, and the team eventually demonstrated resilience and agency as they made a pivot to capitalize on their research of Shock-absorbing materials. They developed a pitch to prosthetic companies which can incorporate their research insights to further possible impact.

The larger purpose of our 10-week journey into design thinking was our connection with Roderick’s expressed discomfort. This purpose shaped our introduction to need-finding, synthesizing and ideation, idea selection and prototyping, prototype refinement, and pitching. Students persevered through their fears, disagreements, and disappointments; they made it work because they did not think it was about them but rather about what they could contribute to support Roderick.

“Our community partner Roderick Sewell is the first bilateral above-the-knee amputee to finish the IRONMAN World Championship. As a serious athlete, he needs to feel his best to perform his best—and that’s our charge!” –Team Pierrepont Innovators

“Working on Project Invent provided me with an appreciation for Roderick Sewell and the time I spend with my classmates. The opportunity to learn Roderick’s story as we worked with him to develop solutions to his lower back pain proved to be the most rewarding part of the process.” –Hagen Feeney, Pierrepont School Senior

Understanding the Journey

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” –Friedrich Nietzsche

By default, as educators we teach process; learning to solve problems in several different ways is central to our training, and sometimes that dominates our lessons to students. The Project Invent experience helps educators and students alike to prioritize the “why” and “what” of our learning over the “how.” The Project Invent experience added the very essential element of “purpose” which helped my students and me push the boundaries of the typical project-based, creative problem-solving classroom experience. Indeed, such an experience only thrives in and helps to foster a culture of caring, purpose, learning, and enjoyment (all in the dimension of flexibility to respond to change)—the kind of culture espoused by our school, Pierrepont culture ! Through our experience with human-centered problem-solving, students and teachers alike have cultivated practices and mindsets that are necessary to become leaders.

Every Leader Needs a Community and a Support System

“Leadership without support is like trying to make bricks without enough straw. True leaders reinforce their ideas and plan with strategic partnerships, alliances, and supportive audiences.” –Reed Markham, Ph.D.

In addition to the Pierrepont culture that presented a fertile soil for the teacher practices and students’ mindsets we needed, the Project Invent community and support system were so important for us. I recall the confidence boost and reassurance from our first session with a volunteer expert, Valerie Peng, an engineer who builds robots for a living. Not only did my team get to soak invaluable information that was relevant for advancing our project, but we were also all inspired by the passion with which she shared her work with us. Similarly, I found renewed strength and motivation with each conversation with Project Invent staff members and other fellows. In our shared space as educator-leaders, my co-fellows and I were able to explore possible solutions to shared challenges like keeping students motivated through their fears and disappointments, navigating operational logistics and schedule challenges, etc. I am indeed grateful for such a community as it helps to know you are not alone.

Beyond the Classroom

The teacher as leader practices cultivated during my Project Invent experience has affected my work beyond Pierrepont. With clarity of purpose and the necessary focus on impact and human-centeredness, my data science consulting company has embarked on a renewed mission to diversify the data science workforce and bridge the gap to full and equal participation in the emerging digital economy through InclusionBridge . Indeed, the Project Invent experience provided a complementary lens for me to refine my purpose—my journey—of nurturing and developing young talents through problem-solving and meaningful learning experiences. I enjoy creating and facilitating opportunities to help students become fearless, compassionate young leaders.

Image at top is a slide from the student project presentation by Team SNAILS, Pierrepont School.

Taiwo A. Togun (he, him, his)

Faculty, pierrepont school, and co-founder & executive director, inclusionbridge, inc..

Taiwo is an educator, a data scientist, and a social entrepreneur who is passionate about nurturing and developing young talent. He is the architect and director of the Computer Science program and Innovation Lab at Pierrepont School , a private K-12 where he enjoys the challenge of making computer programming and problem-solving skills accessible to students at all levels. Dr. Togun is a visiting scientist at the Boykin Lab at the Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University, supporting research to elucidate perceptions of fairness in machine learning algorithms. With a Ph.D. in computational biology & bioinformatics from Yale and a master's in technology leadership from Brown, he combines data science, technology, strategy, and leadership as co-founder and executive director of InclusionBridge . Through InclusionBridge, Taiwo and his team are on a mission to increase diversity in the data science workforce through internships and training programs for underrepresented talent. Follow Taiwo on LinkedIn .

Read More About Why Schools Need to Change

Bring Your Vision for Student Success to Life with NGLC and Bravely

March 13, 2024

For Ethical AI, Listen to Teachers

Jason Wilmot

October 23, 2023

Turning School Libraries into Discipline Centers Is Not the Answer to Disruptive Classroom Behavior

Stephanie McGary

October 4, 2023

• Get IGI Global News

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases

Shortly You Will Be Redirected to Our Partner eContent Pro's Website

eContent Pro powers all IGI Global Author Services. From this website, you will be able to receive your 25% discount (automatically applied at checkout), receive a free quote, place an order, and retrieve your final documents .

What is Problem-Solving Team

Related Books View All Books

Related Journals View All Journals

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Is Your AI-First Strategy Causing More Problems Than It’s Solving?

• Oguz A. Acar

Consider a more balanced and thoughtful approach to AI transformation.

The problem with an AI-first strategy lies not within the “AI” but with the notion that it should come “first” aspect. An AI-first approach can be myopic, potentially leading us to overlook the true purpose of technology: to serve and enhance human endeavors. Instead, the author recommends following 3Ps during an AI transformation: problem-centric, people-first, and principle-driven.

From technology giants like Google to major management consultants like McKinsey , a rapidly growing number of companies preach an “AI-first” strategy. In essence, this means considering AI as the ultimate strategic priority , one that precedes other alternative directions. At first glance, this strategy seems logical, perhaps even inevitable. The figures speak for themselves: the sheer volume of investment flowing into AI technologies shows the confidence levels in an increasingly AI-driven future.

• Oguz A. Acar is a Chair in Marketing at King’s Business School, King’s College London.

Partner Center