Group Problem Solving Model

Group Problem Solving Model

Summary of Topic

Nowadays, there is a trend that more and more people working together due to numerous reasons, such as the increase complexity of tasks and various communication and transportation means. The vocabulary “groupthink” has been introduced by Janis during this trend, and he developed a groupthink model to inform people when and how groups should be used and formed (Janis, 1971).  Based on this model, Aldag and Fuller further investigated this groupthink field and invented a new and more widely applicable model named the “general group problem-solving (GGPS) model” (Aldag and Fuller, 1993).  They also added task characteristics into the GGPS as one of antecedents. As each individual tends to have his/ her own expertise, this model suggests forming a group of personnel with compensatory and diverse specialties can broaden the distribution of information, which is more likely to generate the chemistry needed to accomplish complex tasks.  However, Susan Cain, an author, disagreed on the advantages of forming groups by pointing out that, like Darwin, Picasso, and Dr. Seuss, our greatest thinkers have often worked in solitude” (Cook). In addition, she stated that creativity and highest efficiency came from the talented and motivated people working alone.  Ben Jones, a management professor at Northwestern University, disagreed with Cain and believed that the remaining problems are a lot harder to solve than the ones hundreds of years ago as a result of scientific advances, and collaboration is needed today (Lehrer, 2012).  Moreover, he backed up his statement by bringing up the fact that hundreds of engineers in Boeing are working on a single engine now, while the Wright brothers successfully built an airplane all by themselves.  

Powerful leader is desired in the GGPS model.  Flowers and Leana defines the powerful leader as a participative leader with open style rather than directive leader with closed style (Flowers, 1977; Leana, 1985).  Through a series of tests, they found that teams with such leaders usually proposed more alternative solutions to a specific problem than their counterpart did. Osborn, a partner in the advertising agency B.B.D.O., pointed out that the teams with more ideas are the teams with better brainstorming techniques, which only regards with the quantity of ideas rather than quality.  In addition, he believes that this technique better to be free of criticism and negative feedback (Lehrer, 2012).  

The chance of interaction of the group also plays a major role in the GGPS model.  Isaac Kohane, a Harvard Medical researcher, investigated the correlation between physical proximity of research group members and quality of their work. The result demonstrated that the groups with members working physically closer to each other usually come up with higher quality papers (Lehrer, 2012).  A representative example that benefited from this theory is the Building 20 at M.I.T.  With poorly furnished conditions, Building 20 was once considered to be demolished.  Thanks to the short of space, a variety of academic departments and student clubs had to move into this building.  The horizontal layout of this building increased the chance of encounter and stimulated interaction between students and faculty, which resulted in numerous subsequent innovations and breakthroughs (Lehrer, 2012).

There are still perspectives that the GGPS model does not cover, such as determination of the size of group. A research study from Dennis and Valacich filled this gap.  This study, instead of simply looking for the ideal group size, investigates why and how the size of groups is related to the overall group performance. It also compares face to face environment with computerized meeting environment to analyze how each process gains and losses factor respond with given group size under these two environments, respectively.  The result shows that the intact groups, where everyone works together, outperform the pooled small sub-groups and individuals under the computerized meeting environment rather than face to face environment (Dennis and Valacich, 1994).