Final Report: Effective Problem Solving in Teams

Mark Hildebrand, Ester Todd, Amy Warner, Ryan Williams,

Department of Leadership Studies, Fort Hays State University

LDRS 807: Leadership in Teams and Collaborative Environments

Dr. Brent Goertzen

July 20, 2022

 2

Chapter Learning Objectives

• Learn how to identify the problem.

• Assess and differentiate between various methods of problem solving.
• Explain how team factors can help facilitate effective problem solving in teams.
• Identify potential barriers for team problem solving.
• Apply the practical implications of this chapter through team problem-solving
implementation.

Effective Problem Solving in Teams

As organizations evolve and become more focused on prioritizing leadership

development, the effectiveness with which teams solve problems is crucial in assessing their

performance. While individual problem solving has been a critical topic of research for quite

some time, researchers have taken a vested interest in analyzing team problem solving in more

recent times. The issue of problem solving in a team context presents an array of unique

challenges. The interpersonal relationships and social associations that form between individuals

directly impact team cohesiveness. The unique individual and collective characteristics that exist

simultaneously in these multidimensional groups are also important considerations for

understanding team development and function.

As teams engage in the problem-solving process, an important first step involves clearly

identifying the problem. As teams begin working through the problem, they must next adopt the

most effective method for goal achievement. Understanding the various problem-solving

methods and styles is important for any team striving for success. When teams embrace the

problem-solving process, it is inevitable that barriers will hinder progress. Knowing what

challenges lie ahead will help the team avoid costly errors that negatively impact performance.

Once the team identifies the best solution, there must also be a clear plan for proper

implementation.
 3

As with any topic of learning, the goal is to translate these concepts into real-world

applications. These practical implications have significant value when integrating these learning

objectives into real life organizations. This chapter will cover the key learning objectives and

concludes with a case study to help synthesize these core concepts into a practical application

example.

Identifying the Problem

The most important aspect of problem solving is identifying the issue preventing the team

from accomplishing their goals. “The identification of problems that must be solved, threats that

must be countered, challenges that must be met and opportunities that may profitably be

exploited by an organization if its purposes are to be fulfilled and its objectives achieved” (Lee,

1970). To succeed in a competitive environment, teams must collaborate to identify problems

and overcome obstacles. Leaders and team members alike must be skilled at using specific

techniques that allow them to identify potential issues before they have a negative impact on the

overall goal. There are various approaches that a team can take to identify these issues. This

section discusses three well-researched techniques that can aid leaders and teams in identifying

the root problem and maximizing the team’s potential: concept maps, the fish-bone method, and

the Five Whys method.

Concept Maps

Concept Maps are “graphical tools used to activate prior knowledge, to support problem

solving, to enhance conceptual understanding and to organize and revise knowledge” (Zwaal &

Otting, 2012). Concept mapping broadens perception by incorporating more diverse information

and promoting a more expansive and complex cognitive structure. In their article The Effect of

Use of Concept Maps on Problem Solving Performance and Attitude in Mechanical Engineering
 4

Course, authors Kamble and Tembe identify the benefits of using concept maps in problem

solving. They analyze a study on engineering students in which two groups were formed: one

group was taught to solve a problem using concept maps and the other group was not. As a result

of the study, the team that used the concept mapping strategy improved the students' problem-

solving performance and increased their comfort level with concept mapping (Kamble & Tembe,

2013).

Fishbone Method

The fishbone diagram, so called because the shape is similar to a fish skeleton, is a

“common tool used for a cause-and-effect analysis to identify a complex interplay of causes for a

specific problem or event” (Coccia, 2018). The mechanism that is used to define the potential

cause of any problem that a team or organization is experiencing and to identify the cause-and-

effect relationship. The fishbone diagram is created by teams working together to actively

brainstorm potential causes and categorize them to help highlight potential issues. The four steps

of the fishbone diagram are as follows:

• 1) Identify the issue causing the team to struggle to reach the desired outcome.

• 2) Determine as many contributing factors to the problem as possible.

• 3) Generate a list of potential causes for the problem and categorize them accordingly.

• 4) Prioritize the causes impacting the organization and address them first.

Five Whys Technique

The Five Whys technique is another method for identifying the problem. The Five Whys

technique, developed by Sakichi Toyoda, requires three key elements to be used effectively:

“accurate and complete statements of problems, complete honesty in answering questions, and a

determination to find the underlying cause of problems and resolve them” (Serrat, 2017).
 5

Leaders and team members must take the following steps to use the Five Whys technique

successfully:

• 1) Assemble a team and agree on a problem statement.

• 2) Ask the team "why": why is this or that problem occurring? There could be more than

one why. Write them all down.

• 3) Ask at least four more "whys" in succession. This will aid in finding the root cause if

you continue to ask why and no further information is provided.

• 4) Using the list of potential root causes, discuss these possibilities and select the most

likely systemic cause.

Once the most common root cause of the problem has been found, teams must develop and

implement a plan to ensure that the root cause is addressed and that the problem does not

reoccur.

Problem-Solving Methods

Developing a keen understanding of team problem solving is crucial for organizations to

maintain a competitive edge and remain relevant in an ever-changing marketplace. Knowing the

fundamental problem-solving methods, strategies, and processes are critically important in any

team context. The degree of effectiveness in team problem solving is a profound predictor of

overall team performance and success. This section is separated into five parts that explore the

various problem-solving methods and key strategies. Considering the complexity of team

dynamics, researchers have examined several specific areas within the problem-solving process.

Consensus vs. Single Leader Decision-making

Utilizing the right decision-making method and process will play a key role in obtaining

desirable outcomes and achieving overall team effectiveness. Extensive research has been
 6

conducted on the topic of decision making, although most has focused on individual decision

making and related topics. As decision-making research evolves, researchers have displayed an

interest in better understanding team decision making. A team is a grouping of individuals with

both individualistic properties and group dynamics; this complexity allows for various manners

in which decisions can be made by a team. Consensus and single leader are two prominent styles

that stand out when examining team decision-making. Many management experts would support

having team members engaged in the decision-making process by providing input. This is a

transition away from traditional methods that rely on the leader to make unilateral decisions for

the team. Increasing team member buy-in may result in a higher functioning team, but the

resistance of some leaders to relinquish authority or an individual team member’s unwillingness

to accept the liability of making decisions present challenges for team-oriented decision-making

(Yang, 2010).

In the article titled, Consensus vs Single Leader Decision-making, author Maria Yang

examines these two styles in a technical design environment, specifically focusing on comparing

consensus to single leader with team input. These two specific styles have many similarities, but

one key difference is who makes the final decision—the leader or the group. When comparing

consensus to various other styles, the resulting levels of team member satisfaction, individual

interest in the group, decision-making time, and decision acceptance vary. There are cohesion,

commitment, and satisfaction benefits from a consensus strategy, but the ease with which

groupthink can evolve in this environment is concerning. Single leader with input, like

“consensus with qualification”, involves the leader genuinely considering input from all

members. The leader will then make the final decision by relying on the input from a few trusted

team members. While the leader makes the decision, team member input is a key attribute.
 7

Single leader input has been coined as a “fast” approach and consensus is more of a “slow”

approach. It takes more time to reach consensus then it takes the leader to weigh input and make

the decision (Yang, 2010).

In a research study designed to evaluate these two styles, 59 graduate level engineering

students were split into groups and assigned tasks (Yang, 2010). Each style was employed by

specific groups of varying team size and evaluated. To properly assess decision quality, a team

of experts was formed to inform researchers which decision for each task was preferred. The

results of the research indicated that a single leader with input was a faster method. The quality

of decision was similar regardless of style. This study suggests that the speed advantages and the

lack of quality disparity support a single leader with input approach. It is important to

acknowledge this study narrowly focuses on engineering design and should not be broadly

interpreted to have inferred relevancy in the social sciences. The other key takeaway is that

future research in design team decision-making should center on the role of team composition,

the decision-making processes for virtual product teams, and on engineering design education

(Yang, 2010).

Team Initiated Problem Solving Model

In discussing and identifying different styles of team decision-making, it is also important

to acknowledge that teams can employ various problem-solving models to achieve goals. In the

field of education, a unique model was evaluated in a pilot study. The team-initiated problem-

solving model (TIPS) was designed to address fidelity concerns for implementing problem

solving processes. Identifying the highest quality solutions is important for achieving the desired

outcome. There are various problem-solving models used by teams in the education field. One

such model, IDEAL (identify the problem, define the problem, explore solutions, apply the
 8

chosen solution, and look at effects) uses data to guide the decision-making process. Similarly,

the TIPS model relies on relevant data throughout the problem-solving process. One key

difference of the TIPS model from other models is its ability to better analyze relevant data. The

TIPS model provides structured and foundational procedures which enable team members to

implement problem-solving processes efficiently and effectively (Newton et al, 2012). These

processes are identified as:

1. Establish problem solving foundations

a. Construction of an agenda

b. Team meeting roles

c. Preparing for, conducting, and following up on a meeting

2. Identify problems

3. Develop and refine hypotheses

4. Discuss and select solutions

5. Develop and implement a problem-solving action plan

6. Evaluate and revise the problem-solving action plan

Figure 1 Team-initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) model

 9

By implementing the TIPS model in two states, this pilot program helped evaluate

whether data collection protocols enhanced team members' attention to fidelity. The results of

the pilot test showed that team members generally implemented the TIPS processes with fidelity,

but the success declined over time. Another discovery is that attending the initial TIPS workshop

was important but did not provide the skills and abilities needed to immediately analyze data

effectively without additional assistance. The success of this research indicated promise and

opportunities for further research of the data-based TIPS program (Newton et al, 2012).

Nominal Group and Delphi Techniques

Specific to the consensus method of decision making, there are two emerging techniques

focused on problem solving, idea-generation, and determining priorities. Consensus methods

strive to achieve general agreement or convergence of opinion for a specific topic. One primary

way to operationalize consensus decision making is by using the Nominal Group or Delphi

techniques. Consensus methods rely on the interaction within a group of participants and offer a

balanced participation of group members. These groups must be moderated to ensure individual

dominance does not drive or define the group (Mcmillan et al, 2016).

The Nominal Group technique involves face-to-face group interactions where everyone is

provided a voice to express opinions. It is structured into four stages: silent generation, round

robin, clarification, and voting. The recommended size is a maximum of seven participants. To

accommodate specific group dynamics that may pose challenges, the Nominal Group technique

can be adapted. One example is by combining the two stages of round robin and clarification, or

by eliminating the clarification/grouping stage completely. One variation involves adjusting the

process of generating ideas by developing a ranking process (Mcmillan et al, 2016). The Delphi

Technique also relies on group interaction but uses questionnaires instead of face-to-face
 10

communication. This technique provides a way to incorporate participant anonymity. Although

the size of the group is discretionary, the limiting factor is the number of support staff available

to ensure the method is effective.

After two rounds of questions, a final unique question is developed for each participant

based on previous responses. This structure is typical, but the Delphi Technique can have any

number of rounds depending on design. By using the median score for responses in a rating

scale, the administrator can determine if consensus has been reached. Variations also exist for the

Delphi Technique. One variant utilizes open questions initially followed by a rating process for

later rounds. Regardless of which technique is employed, consensus decision making involves

generating ideas and determining priorities (Mcmillan et al, 2016).

Pretotyping

As team problem-solving research evolves, practitioners are always looking for new and

innovative ways to increase effectiveness and leverage the power of teams. One creative way to

identify the best solutions is by rethinking the focus of strategy modeling. Within a vertical

innovation process, pretotyping is used to actualize creativity and innovation by fully developing

multiple viable solutions. This process will overcome the inclination of any team to narrowly

think in terms of identifying a singular best solution or using previously accepted strategies.

Before a single solution is identified and implemented, the team focuses on innovation to create

multiple models. By building out comprehensive viable solutions, the team can then step back

and allow the decision-makers and market (the clients that will ultimately gauge the success of a

solution) to weigh in. By staying with traditional methods, success remains relative because

unconsidered options could have potentially achieved higher levels of success. This is a

philosophical change because decision making usually relies on perceptions or assumptions

 11

about market success. Instead, teams should focus on innovation and worry about market appeal

as an assessment function when the final solution is ultimately selected. Using market appeal as a

problem-solving factor will drive a team to the one solution the team believes will be successful.

However, it is important to know that this is a flawed measurement of team success because

other viable solutions were never fully realized (Brix & Jakobsen, 2015).

In business modeling popular models are based on business type and past market success.

A commonly known model will likely be evaluated, selected, and implemented. This generalized

approach does not leave much in the way of innovation and creativity in model design. Success

is very arbitrary and relative since we have no comparative. In looking at the vertical innovation

process, a pretotype is created by addressing nine unique areas, as demonstrated through Figure

2.
 12

Figure 2 Explaining the content of the VIP framework

Once these nine areas are explored, the team then creates model pretotypes. In the

business modeling example, a pretotype is described as “a systematic description of the potential

area(s) of application for the new breakthrough including a description of the hindrances that

must be removed/reduced for the pretotype to succeed” (Brix & Jakobsen, 2015, p. 104). Once

complete, the pretotype(s) can be presented to decision-makers who can choose to transform the

pretotype into a more formalized strategy. Commercializing the formalized strategy is considered

after this initial process, which preserves innovative design. Implementation planning needs to be

addressed as part of the process and should occur after the pretotype was formulated and before

presentation to decision-makers (Brix & Jakobsen, 2015).

 13

Although pretotyping in this context relates directly to business modeling, the

implications are potentially far reaching. Instead of thinking about solutions in terms of

marketplace performance, start with a modeling process centered around innovation and design.

By following this vertical innovation process, pretotypes are created that follow a structured

path. By using a foundational process, design teams can present pretotypes to decision-makers

who will understand what drove the design process. It is explicit and provides a framework that

is necessary to gain buy-in for solutions that are radical and outside the typical approach to

problem-solving (Brix & Jakobsen, 2015).

Barriers Affecting the Desired Outcome

Every team will encounter obstacles; these problems or impediments that delay teams

from accomplishing their desired objectives are known as barriers. 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). It is essential to thoroughly comprehend how to recognize barriers to efficient problem

solving.

Understanding these barriers enhances teamwork and expedites problem solving,

increasing the likelihood that the desired outcome will be accomplished. Regardless of the

severity of the problem, these challenges frequently appear as mental obstacles to successfully

solve the problem. “Failing to identify and take into consideration the human factor in the

problem-solving process will prevent the whole mechanism from reaching the desired final goal”

(Cantero-Gomez, 2022). Even if some difficulties may not stop us from coming up with

solutions, they may still stop us from coming up with the most effective solution. Intragroup
 14

conflict, confirmation bias, mental set, functional fixedness, unnecessary constraint, and

irrelevant knowledge are six of the most prevalent of these barriers.

Intragroup Conflict

Intragroup conflict refers to disagreements or differences among the members of a work group

with regard to group goals, functions, or activities (Tsuno et al., 2009). Conflicts within the team

weaken its cohesiveness and lower the commitment and motivation of its members. Without

compromise from one side of the team or intervention from leadership, intragroup conflicts can

be detrimental to the desired outcome.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the human tendency to search for, favor, and use information that confirms

one’s pre-existing views on a certain topic (Healy, 2016). The person may become quite critical

and defensive when given fresh information that challenges their ideas, and highly likely to

overlook or forget the contradictory facts being conveyed. It takes teamwork, brainstorming, and

the willingness of team members to step outside of their comfort zones to examine ideas to

overcome confirmation bias.

Mental Set

Mental set is a tendency to only see solutions that have worked in the past. This type of fixed

thinking can make it difficult to come up with solutions and can impede the problem-solving

process (Cherry, 2020). Thus, mental sets obstruct the creative, inquisitive, and innovative

processes that are critical for effective problem solving. Members must be able to maintain

flexibility and an open mind when considering potential solutions to overcome mental set.

Functional Fixedness
 15

People can focus on a specific (common) function of an object while overlooking other possible

functions that might help to solve a problem (Arnon & Kreitler, 1984). Functional fixedness

impairs creativity by preventing people from considering other approaches to a problem. To

overcome functional fixedness, team members must be willing to think creatively and create new

ways of thinking to lead to better problem solving.

Unnecessary Constraints

These constraints emerge when a person instinctively places restrictions on an issue to solve it,

which makes it difficult for them to come up with more original solutions. Unnecessary

constraints occur when someone becomes obsessed on just one approach to solving their issue,

making it extremely difficult to view alternatives. Creativity and the willingness to attempt other

options is required to ensure that unnecessary constraint does not affect being successful in

problem solving.

Irrelevant Information

Information supplied within a problem that is unnecessary or inconsequential to the problem is

referred to as irrelevant information. The team will become distracted or unable to come up with

a solution because of a lack of information or too much irrelevant information, which will

generate an issue. Finding the pertinent information is crucial for solving a problem. If irrelevant

information is provided, a more complicated situation will get difficult and take much longer.

Factors that influence effective problem solving in teams

We would be remiss if we did not discuss team factors that have the ability to inhibit or

enhance problem solving. The importance of understanding and developing these factors will

greatly increase a teams’ effectiveness in solving problems. Teams who effectively problem

solve are meticulously designed and nurtured. Teams require the right mix and number of
 16

members, as well as tasks and processes that are optimally designed, and norms that discourage

destructive behavior and promote positive dynamics. Factors that significantly influence team

effectiveness include team size, team composition, team environment, team goals, power shifts

within teams, and external support systems.

To avoid these potential pitfalls and improve inclusive communication, teams should be

kept small. Poor communication, fragmentation, and social loafing (a decrease in effort because

people feel less responsible for the output) are more likely to occur in large teams. This

phenomenon kicks in when teams exceed four or five members; inclusive communication

decreases drastically (Haas & Mortensen, 2016). To effectively solve problems, team members

must also possess certain core competencies. A common mistake in forming a team is to assume

that people who have all the technical skills necessary to solve a problem also have the

interpersonal skills to collaborate effectively (Hackman, 1990). In addition, “team-members need

teamwork factors such as openness, supportiveness, action orientation, and a positive personal

style” (LaFasto & Larson, 2001).

Team failure may result from the members’ “collective failure to coordinate and

synchronize their individual contributions” (Zaccaro et al., 2001, p. 451). The integration of

individual actions is a fundamental characteristic of effective team problem solving. To build an

atmosphere that fosters collaboration, we need to develop trusting relationships based on

honesty, openness, consistency, and respect (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).

Teams may also fail because they let something else replace their goal, such as personal

agendas or power issues (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Therefore, it is critical to provide a clear,

elevating goal to achieve effective problem solving. Team members are energized, focused, and
 17

engaged to their full potential when they have a clear sense of why they are on the job

(Hackman, 2012, p. 437).

Another factor contributing to the failure of many teams is how traditional authority

structures in many organizations do not allow for decision making at lower levels. Traditional

vertical decision making in the organizational hierarchy, based on rank or position, is an example

of lateral decision making in teamwork. This dynamic and fluid power shifting in teams has been

referred to as heterarchy (Aime, Humphrey, DeRue, & Paul, 2014). Such power shifts within

teams can have an advantageous effect if the team members believe that these shifting power

sources are legitimate. Shared leadership, while very important, does involve risk and takes some

courage for the member who steps forward to provide leadership outside the formal role of team

leader (Amos & Klimoski, 2014). Risks aside, teams with shared leadership have less conflict,

more consensus, more trust, and more cohesion than teams that do not have shared leadership

(Bergman et al., 2012).

Team effectiveness can be greatly influenced depending on the amount or lack of

external support. External support includes ensuring that material resources are available,

technology needs are met, and rewards are provided for excellent performance. In addition,

effective team problem solving can be positively impacted by introducing educational systems to

develop necessary team skills. Development refers to the cohesiveness of the team and the ability

of team members to satisfy their own needs while working effectively with other team members

(Nadler, 1998). Trained teams shared more unique information, transferred more knowledge,

developed higher cognitive congruence, and produced higher quality solutions (Rentsch, et.al,

2014).

Practical Ways for Teams to Improve Their Problem-Solving Skills

 18

Throughout this chapter, the student has learned how to sort through potentially

distracting information to find the root cause or true problem that their team is are dealing with.

Next, the student learned how to assess various methods of problem solving. Third, students

learned how to anticipate and identify potential barriers to effective team problem solving.

Lastly, students learned to recognize how team factors such as size, environment, or even goals

can facilitate effective problem solving. Students may wonder how to best apply the information

and resources discussed in this chapter, and the answer is through synthesizing this information

into effective implementation for their own team problems. Effective implementation is the

natural final component of the problem-solving cycle; it takes the most important information

identified in this chapter and transforms a theoretical idea (the solution identified by the team)

into practical action.

Takeaway One: Identify the root cause of your team’s problem.

Teams facing complex, multidimensional problems must learn how to discover the root cause or

underlying problem to effectively problem solve. Teams can avoid addressing symptoms rather

than the problem itself by intentionally working through a root-cause analysis. While teams may

choose a variety of methods for this analysis, the most accessible option is simply through

dialogue—why? Ask yourself and your team, why is there a problem? Why is that so? Continue

with that line of questioning until you are satisfied and able to take action with the answer.

Takeaway Two: Determine which problem-solving method is most applicable to your

team’s situation.

The problem-solving methods identified in this chapter fit a wide variety of scenarios and

factors. It is now up to the student to determine which of the discussed methods are most
 19

appropriate for their team. Here are a few questions team members can ask themselves to help

determine an appropriate problem-solving method:

1. Is your team small enough to consider using consensus decision making?

2. Do you have a capable and willing leader to engage in single leader or lead with input

methods?

3. Do you have the time, resources, and ability to gather the necessary data to use the

TIPS model?

4. Would your team benefit from having a creative, innovative approach such as is

offered through pretotyping?

Ultimately, each team is unique in both their composition and the problems that they are facing.

They may decide that using a combination of problem-solving methods is the best approach, or

they may try one approach only to discover that it is not the best fit. Being flexible and allowing

change throughout the process is important.

Takeaway Three: Anticipate potential barriers to team success.

As teams begin to think about which methods to employ in their problem-solving process, they

should also consider what issues they may run into. Mitigating potential barriers early in the

process will improve overall efficacy. After reading through this chapter’s section on barriers to

team success, the student should consider their own team. Try to identify obvious issues that

might affect your team and consider discussing some of these issues upfront. For example, if you

know that mental set may be an issue for some team members, set a team norm of all members

respectfully allowing others to discuss their creative ideas.

Takeaway Four: Assess team factors that may impact overall effectiveness.
 20

Your team’s composition will greatly influence the ability to problem-solve. This is important to

remember throughout the entire problem-solving cycle. Although you can and should set norms

and expectations at the beginning of the process, you must also remember that team size,

composition, environment, goals, etc. may change throughout the process. If your team has a

rough start, this can be changed! You can contribute to a healthy environment, find and add more

resources, or even change the team size as needed.

Takeaway Five: Create an implementation plan for the solution.

Implementing a solution requires planning, consideration, and strategy. Styles differ by field,

organization, and individual project; implementation plans may be a formal technical document

or a bullet-point list on the whiteboard. Regardless of the logistical approach, an effective

implementation plan covers team objectives and goals, schedules and benchmarks, resources,

roles and responsibilities, contingencies, and outcome evaluation strategies.

When considering their implementation plan, a team may wish to start the conversation

with these practical questions: what, how, why, when, and where?

• What is the problem?

• How will the team solve the problem?

• Why is there a problem/why is it relevant to the team/why is this the best method for

• approaching the issue?

• When will the team implement a solution/when are the relevant deadlines or associated

timelines?

• Where will the teamwork (i.e., virtual platforms, specific computer systems, building

locations, geographical locations, etc.).

Additional Learning
 21

In addition to the above considerations, teams addressing complex problems may wish to

use a more defined framework for their problem-solving implementation. Active Implementation

Frameworks (AIFs) is an evidence-based strategy used to help develop these plans (Pollastri,

Wang, Youn, Ablon, & Marques, 2020). AIFs provide a set of adaptable guidelines that are

based on five critical components developed by the National Implementation Research Network:

usable innovation, implementation stages, implementation teams, implementation drivers, and

improvement cycles (Pollastri, Wang, Youn, Ablon, & Marques, 2020). Teams can work through

these components to develop an effective approach to implementing their solutions.

Usable innovation is the relevance and achievability of a solution. It further specifies the

quality of the solution being implemented, a factor which may be determined by the norms the

teams set for itself, by the organization’s core values and mission, or even by larger regulatory

boards or entities in fields such as education and healthcare. The usable innovation component

also encourages teams to clarify definitions and descriptions of essential features, key words, and

approaches that are relevant to the solution. This is also a good time in the process for team-

members to ensure that they are not using jargon or acronyms that other team members may not

be familiar with.

The next component of AIFs is the stages of implementation. Working through the

implementation process with multiple stages—exploration, installation, initial implementation,

and full implementation—allows teams to take large projects and break them down into realistic

steps. At this point, teams may wish to assign individual members to “own” specific stages, or

they may all choose to work together throughout the entire process. During the exploration stage,

teams should consider the barriers to problem-solving, as well as their readiness and strategies

for implementation (Pollastri, Wang, Youn, Ablon, & Marques, 2020).

 22

The third critical component of AIFs is implementation teams, which focuses on the

importance of team member composition and how it impacts problem-solving capabilities. Team

members should represent multiple levels of the organization, diverse needs and abilities, and be

willing to address the problem (Pollastri, Wang, Youn, Ablon, & Marques, 2020).

The fourth component of AIFs is implementation drivers, but it is important to note that

these drivers are considerations that should be recognized from the very start of implementation

planning. Key drivers for teams to consider include the competency of team members and any

other solution-affected individuals, the systems and administration of the organization, and the

styles/willingness/readiness of leadership. Teams should ask themselves (and answer honestly),

do they need additional preparation before implementation? Do members need coaching or

additional support? Does the team have the necessary resources? Is leadership on board with the

solution? These types of questions help prepare the team prior to implementation, as well as

provide feedback during implementation to help measure the effectiveness of a solution.

Summary

Problem solving is a challenging process that requires a structured approach to find the

most favorable solution. Identifying viable solutions is one important aspect to problem solving,

but the successful identification, selection, and implementation of the right solution is key. By

seeking out the best solutions, the problem-solver must engage in a complex series of decision-

making processes that, done properly, will lead to a successful outcome. What complicates

problem solving even further is when the process occurs within a team environment. So many

factors affect how teams interact and make decisions. These team dynamics influence the entire

problem-solving process.
 23

The first topic in this chapter covered problem identification which is an important first

step in the process. Several identification methods were offered that help determine the root

cause of a particular issue or problem. The next topic explored the process methods of problem-

solving in teams. Every team should strive to be highly effective and efficient at solving

problems. This chapter detailed key styles and methods that teams should consider for finding

success. As teams work through the problem-solving process, there will be barriers and obstacles

that challenge the team. Overcoming these barriers are essential for achieving the ultimate goal.

Explaining these barriers assists problem-solving teams understand where friction points may

exist in the process. The section covering the factors that influence effective problem-solving in

teams, address the characteristics and tendencies that are unique in a team environment.

Understanding these factors and traits can help teams find the synergy and cohesion required to

be effective in problem solving. Lastly, this chapter integrated these team problem-solving

concepts together by providing some practical implications. In doing so, a framework for

implementation was identified to offer additional learning opportunities.

Case Study

Situation

The city of Oxford, Nebraska has faced a decreasing population in the past twenty years,

and consequently, the class sizes at Oxford High School have also decreased. The school board

has been making necessary decreases in spending to remain financially viable. The board is

faced with cuts in supplies, teaching staff, and teacher layoffs to meet the budget demands. The

acting Superintendent, Mr. Larry Stineman, approached the school board with the proposal of
 24

contacting neighboring school districts to determine if other school districts would be interested

in a school consolidation. The Oxford school board approved for Mr. Stineman to reach out to

two neighboring schools. Mr. Stineman invited the two neighboring school Superintendents to a

meeting to ask about their interest and determine if other nearby schools were facing the same

financial stressors. Both visiting Superintendents expressed immediate interest and a committee

was formed to investigate the feasibility. Firms were hired to conduct feasibility studies and

concluded that a school consolidation would be in the best interest of all three school districts.

A school bond was sent to voters and passed successfully. A consolidated school is now

in the works. Two of the three current Superintendents are of retirement age and have expressed

their plans to retire, leaving the third Superintendent to lead the construction of the facility and

the merging of the districts. The population of the combined three districts is 2,754 residents.

The three merging school districts have been longtime sports rivals. Each of the three districts

currently have six-member school boards. It has been determined that one unified school board,

consisting of two members from each school district for a total of six members, would best serve

the needs of the consolidation efforts and the consolidated school district. The collective school

board should represent the combined district as well as solve district problems effectively.

Questions

Q1: When constructing the combined district school board, which factors might affect the team’s

ability to effectively problem solve?

Q2: How will this new board (team) work together to identify and solve problems? Which

method, team training, etc. will they employ?

Q3: What potential barriers will the board (team) face?

 25

Glossary of Key Terms

Active Implementation Framework (AIF) - an evidence-based strategy used to help develop
implementation plans
Brainstorming- a method of decision-making used to indicate group verbal concept generating.
Collaboration- the act of producing something or creating something with someone else.
Competent team members - team members need to possess the requisite technical competence to
accomplish the team’s goals while also having core competencies in teamwork capacities of
openness, supportiveness, action oriented and a positive personal style.
Creative thinking- motivating individuals to keep looking for innovative methods to carry out
tasks or frame ideas.
Decision making- The cognitive process resulting in the selection of a belief or a course of action
among several possible alternative options.
Dependability- the ability to be relied upon; reliability or consistency
Design methods- Procedures, techniques, and tools used in the design process for problem
solving.
Effective communication- the transmission of information through emotions and the purpose of
the information.
Heterarchical structure - the dynamic and fluid power shifting in teams.
Implementation: process of putting a decision or plan into effect
Outcomes: result of implementing the solution
Pretotyping- a rapid experiment that aims to test ideas quickly, simply, and at low cost, gathering
data in order to validate ideas before building a prototype.
Principled leadership - the central driver of team effectiveness, influencing the team through
cognitive, motivational, affective, and coordinate processes.
Root cause analysis- is the process of discovering the root causes of problems in order to identify
appropriate solutions.
Team development - development refers to the cohesiveness of the team and the ability of team
members to satisfy their own needs while working effectively with other team members.
 26

References

Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D.S., & Paul, J.B. (2104). The riddle of heterarchy: Power

transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327-352.

EBSCOhost Business Source Premier

Amos, B., & Klimoski, R.J. (2014). Courage: Making teamwork work well. Group &

Organizational Management, 39(1), 110-128.

Arnon R, Kreitler S. Effects of meaning training on overcoming functional fixedness. Current

Psychological Research & Reviews, 3(4), 11–14. DOI: 10.1007/BF02686553.

Bergman, J.Z., Rentsch, J.R., Small, E.E., Davenport, S.W., & Bergman, S.M. (2012). The

shared leadership process in decision-making teams. The Journal of Social Psychology,

152(1), 17-42.

Brix, J., & Jakobsen, H. S. (2015). Business model pretotyping: exploring pre-commercialisation

opportunities in practice. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 17(1), 98-

110.

Burn, S. (2014, September 4). Good groups gone bad: Destructive intragroup conflict.

Psychology Today. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/presence-mind/201409/good-groups-gone-

bad-destructive-intragroup-conflict

Cantero-Gomez, P. (2022). The Six Main Barriers Against Problem-Solving And How To

Overcome Them. Forbes. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/palomacanterogomez/2019/04/04/the-six-main-barriers-

against-problem-solving-and-how-to-overcome-them/?sh=6f4ca6cf1a19.

Cherry, K. (2020, December 3). How do mental sets impact your ability to solve problems?
 27

Verywell Mind. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-

mental-set-2795370

Coccia, M. (2018, January 11). The Fishbone Diagram to Identify, Systematize and Analyze the

Sources of General Purpose Technologies. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences,

4 (4), 291-303. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3100011

Funke, J. (2012). Complex problem solving. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 682–685.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_685

Haas, M., & Mortensen, M. (2016). The secrets of great teamwork. Harvard Business Review.

94(6), 70-76.

Hackman, J.R., (1990). Work teams in organizations: An orienting framework. In J.R. Hackman

(Ed), Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork

(pp1-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J.R., (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 33, 428-444.

Healy, P. (2016, August 18). Confirmation Bias: How It Affects Your Organization | HBS

Online. Business Insights - Blog. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/confirmation-bias-how-

it-affects-your-organization-and-how-to-overcome-it

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill- Structured

Problem-Solving Learning Outcomes. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 45 (1), 65-94.

Kamble, S. K., & Tembe, B. L. (2013). The effect of use of concept maps on problem solving

performance and attitude in mechanical engineering course. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 83(1), 748–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.141

 28

Lee, A.M. (1970). Problem Recognition, Classification and Appraisal. In: Systems Analysis

Frameworks. Studies in Management. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-

349-00514-7_10

Marvin E. Shaw (1958) Some Effects of Irrelevant Information upon Problem-Solving by Small

Groups, The Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), 33-37, DOI:

10.1080/00224545.1958.9714340

Mcmillan, S. S., King, M., & Tully, M. P. (2016). How to use the nominal group and delphi

techniques. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38(3), 655-662.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x

Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Algozzine, R. F., & Algozzine, K. M. (2012). A pilot

study of a problem-solving model for Team Decision making. Education and Treatment

of Children, 35(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0001

Pollastri, A. R., Wang, L., Youn, S. J., Ablon, J. S., & Marques, L. (2020). The value of

implementation frameworks: Using the active implementation frameworks to guide

system‐wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Community

Psychology, 48(4), 1114–1131. https://doi-org.ezproxy.fhsu.edu/10.1002/jcop.22325

Serrat, O. (2017). The five WHYS technique. Knowledge Solutions, 307–310.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_32

Tsuno, K., Kawakami, N., Inque, A., IshizakiI, M., Tabata, M., Tsuchiya, M., Akiyama, M.,

Kitazume, A., Kuroda, M., Shimazu, A. (2009). Intragroup and intergroup conflict at

work, psychological distress, and work engagement in a sample of employees in Japan.

Industrial Health, 47(6), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.47.640

Volkema, R. J., & Bergmann, T. J. (1989). Interpersonal conflict at work: An analysis of

 29

Behavioral responses. Human Relations 42(1), 757-770.

Yang, M. C. (2010). Consensus and single leader decision-making in teams using structured

Design methods. Design Studies, 31(4), 345–362.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.03.002

Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., & Marks, M.A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12, 451-483.