different methods of problem solving and decision making

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators  using SessionLab.

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!

different methods of problem solving and decision making

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!

Your list of techniques for problem solving can be helpfully extended by adding TRIZ to the list of techniques. TRIZ has 40 problem solving techniques derived from methods inventros and patent holders used to get new patents. About 10-12 are general approaches. many organization sponsor classes in TRIZ that are used to solve business problems or general organiztational problems. You can take a look at TRIZ and dwonload a free internet booklet to see if you feel it shound be included per your selection process.

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
Decision-Making and Problem Solving

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
Communication Skills
Emotional Intelligence
Conflict Resolution and Mediation Skills
Customer Service Skills
Team-Working, Groups and Meetings

Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

Effective Decision Making
Decision-Making Framework
Introduction to Problem Solving

Identifying and Structuring Problems

Investigating Ideas and Solutions

Implementing a Solution and Feedback

Creative Problem-Solving

Social Problem-Solving

Negotiation and Persuasion Skills
Personal and Romantic Relationship Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

The SkillsYouNeed Guide to Interpersonal Skills

Making decisions and solving problems are two key areas in life, whether you are at home or at work. Whatever you’re doing, and wherever you are, you are faced with countless decisions and problems, both small and large, every day.

Many decisions and problems are so small that we may not even notice them. Even small decisions, however, can be overwhelming to some people. They may come to a halt as they consider their dilemma and try to decide what to do.

Small and Large Decisions

In your day-to-day life you're likely to encounter numerous 'small decisions', including, for example:

Tea or coffee?

What shall I have in my sandwich? Or should I have a salad instead today?

What shall I wear today?

Larger decisions may occur less frequently but may include:

Should we repaint the kitchen? If so, what colour?

Should we relocate?

Should I propose to my partner? Do I really want to spend the rest of my life with him/her?

These decisions, and others like them, may take considerable time and effort to make.

The relationship between decision-making and problem-solving is complex. Decision-making is perhaps best thought of as a key part of problem-solving: one part of the overall process.

Our approach at Skills You Need is to set out a framework to help guide you through the decision-making process. You won’t always need to use the whole framework, or even use it at all, but you may find it useful if you are a bit ‘stuck’ and need something to help you make a difficult decision.

Decision Making

Effective Decision-Making

This page provides information about ways of making a decision, including basing it on logic or emotion (‘gut feeling’). It also explains what can stop you making an effective decision, including too much or too little information, and not really caring about the outcome.

A Decision-Making Framework

This page sets out one possible framework for decision-making.

The framework described is quite extensive, and may seem quite formal. But it is also a helpful process to run through in a briefer form, for smaller problems, as it will help you to make sure that you really do have all the information that you need.

Problem Solving

Introduction to Problem-Solving

This page provides a general introduction to the idea of problem-solving. It explores the idea of goals (things that you want to achieve) and barriers (things that may prevent you from achieving your goals), and explains the problem-solving process at a broad level.

The first stage in solving any problem is to identify it, and then break it down into its component parts. Even the biggest, most intractable-seeming problems, can become much more manageable if they are broken down into smaller parts. This page provides some advice about techniques you can use to do so.

Sometimes, the possible options to address your problem are obvious. At other times, you may need to involve others, or think more laterally to find alternatives. This page explains some principles, and some tools and techniques to help you do so.

Having generated solutions, you need to decide which one to take, which is where decision-making meets problem-solving. But once decided, there is another step: to deliver on your decision, and then see if your chosen solution works. This page helps you through this process.

‘Social’ problems are those that we encounter in everyday life, including money trouble, problems with other people, health problems and crime. These problems, like any others, are best solved using a framework to identify the problem, work out the options for addressing it, and then deciding which option to use.

This page provides more information about the key skills needed for practical problem-solving in real life.

Guiding you through the key skills needed in life

As always at Skills You Need, our approach to these key skills is to provide practical ways to manage the process, and to develop your skills.

Neither problem-solving nor decision-making is an intrinsically difficult process and we hope you will find our pages useful in developing your skills.

Start with: Decision Making Problem Solving

See also: Improving Communication Interpersonal Communication Skills Building Confidence

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

Identify the Problem
Define the Problem
Form a Strategy
Organize Information
Allocate Resources
Monitor Progress
Evaluate the Results

Frequently Asked Questions

Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.

The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything they can about the issue and then using factual knowledge to come up with a solution. In other instances, creativity and insight are the best options.

It is not necessary to follow problem-solving steps sequentially, It is common to skip steps or even go back through steps multiple times until the desired solution is reached.

In order to correctly solve a problem, it is often important to follow a series of steps. Researchers sometimes refer to this as the problem-solving cycle. While this cycle is portrayed sequentially, people rarely follow a rigid series of steps to find a solution.

The following steps include developing strategies and organizing knowledge.

1. Identifying the Problem

While it may seem like an obvious step, identifying the problem is not always as simple as it sounds. In some cases, people might mistakenly identify the wrong source of a problem, which will make attempts to solve it inefficient or even useless.

Some strategies that you might use to figure out the source of a problem include :

Asking questions about the problem
Breaking the problem down into smaller pieces
Looking at the problem from different perspectives
Conducting research to figure out what relationships exist between different variables

2. Defining the Problem

After the problem has been identified, it is important to fully define the problem so that it can be solved. You can define a problem by operationally defining each aspect of the problem and setting goals for what aspects of the problem you will address

At this point, you should focus on figuring out which aspects of the problems are facts and which are opinions. State the problem clearly and identify the scope of the solution.

3. Forming a Strategy

After the problem has been identified, it is time to start brainstorming potential solutions. This step usually involves generating as many ideas as possible without judging their quality. Once several possibilities have been generated, they can be evaluated and narrowed down.

The next step is to develop a strategy to solve the problem. The approach used will vary depending upon the situation and the individual's unique preferences. Common problem-solving strategies include heuristics and algorithms.

Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are often based on solutions that have worked in the past. They can work well if the problem is similar to something you have encountered before and are often the best choice if you need a fast solution.
Algorithms are step-by-step strategies that are guaranteed to produce a correct result. While this approach is great for accuracy, it can also consume time and resources.

Heuristics are often best used when time is of the essence, while algorithms are a better choice when a decision needs to be as accurate as possible.

4. Organizing Information

Before coming up with a solution, you need to first organize the available information. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? The more information that is available the better prepared you will be to come up with an accurate solution.

When approaching a problem, it is important to make sure that you have all the data you need. Making a decision without adequate information can lead to biased or inaccurate results.

5. Allocating Resources

Of course, we don't always have unlimited money, time, and other resources to solve a problem. Before you begin to solve a problem, you need to determine how high priority it is.

If it is an important problem, it is probably worth allocating more resources to solving it. If, however, it is a fairly unimportant problem, then you do not want to spend too much of your available resources on coming up with a solution.

At this stage, it is important to consider all of the factors that might affect the problem at hand. This includes looking at the available resources, deadlines that need to be met, and any possible risks involved in each solution. After careful evaluation, a decision can be made about which solution to pursue.

6. Monitoring Progress

After selecting a problem-solving strategy, it is time to put the plan into action and see if it works. This step might involve trying out different solutions to see which one is the most effective.

It is also important to monitor the situation after implementing a solution to ensure that the problem has been solved and that no new problems have arisen as a result of the proposed solution.

Effective problem-solvers tend to monitor their progress as they work towards a solution. If they are not making good progress toward reaching their goal, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies .

7. Evaluating the Results

After a solution has been reached, it is important to evaluate the results to determine if it is the best possible solution to the problem. This evaluation might be immediate, such as checking the results of a math problem to ensure the answer is correct, or it can be delayed, such as evaluating the success of a therapy program after several months of treatment.

Once a problem has been solved, it is important to take some time to reflect on the process that was used and evaluate the results. This will help you to improve your problem-solving skills and become more efficient at solving future problems.

A Word From Verywell

It is important to remember that there are many different problem-solving processes with different steps, and this is just one example. Problem-solving in real-world situations requires a great deal of resourcefulness, flexibility, resilience, and continuous interaction with the environment.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can stop dwelling in a negative mindset.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

You can become a better problem solving by:

Practicing brainstorming and coming up with multiple potential solutions to problems
Being open-minded and considering all possible options before making a decision
Breaking down problems into smaller, more manageable pieces
Asking for help when needed
Researching different problem-solving techniques and trying out new ones
Learning from mistakes and using them as opportunities to grow

It's important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about what's going on. Try to see things from their perspective as well as your own. Work together to find a resolution that works for both of you. Be willing to compromise and accept that there may not be a perfect solution.

Take breaks if things are getting too heated, and come back to the problem when you feel calm and collected. Don't try to fix every problem on your own—consider asking a therapist or counselor for help and insight.

If you've tried everything and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the problem, you may have to learn to accept it. This can be difficult, but try to focus on the positive aspects of your life and remember that every situation is temporary. Don't dwell on what's going wrong—instead, think about what's going right. Find support by talking to friends or family. Seek professional help if you're having trouble coping.

Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ, editors. The Psychology of Problem Solving . Cambridge University Press; 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771

Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving . Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. Published 2018 Jun 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

What is Problem Solving? (Steps, Techniques, Examples)

By Status.net Editorial Team on May 7, 2023 — 5 minutes to read

What Is Problem Solving?

Definition and importance.

Problem solving is the process of finding solutions to obstacles or challenges you encounter in your life or work. It is a crucial skill that allows you to tackle complex situations, adapt to changes, and overcome difficulties with ease. Mastering this ability will contribute to both your personal and professional growth, leading to more successful outcomes and better decision-making.

Problem-Solving Steps

The problem-solving process typically includes the following steps:

Identify the issue : Recognize the problem that needs to be solved.
Analyze the situation : Examine the issue in depth, gather all relevant information, and consider any limitations or constraints that may be present.
Generate potential solutions : Brainstorm a list of possible solutions to the issue, without immediately judging or evaluating them.
Evaluate options : Weigh the pros and cons of each potential solution, considering factors such as feasibility, effectiveness, and potential risks.
Select the best solution : Choose the option that best addresses the problem and aligns with your objectives.
Implement the solution : Put the selected solution into action and monitor the results to ensure it resolves the issue.
Review and learn : Reflect on the problem-solving process, identify any improvements or adjustments that can be made, and apply these learnings to future situations.

Defining the Problem

To start tackling a problem, first, identify and understand it. Analyzing the issue thoroughly helps to clarify its scope and nature. Ask questions to gather information and consider the problem from various angles. Some strategies to define the problem include:

Brainstorming with others
Asking the 5 Ws and 1 H (Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How)
Analyzing cause and effect
Creating a problem statement

Generating Solutions

Once the problem is clearly understood, brainstorm possible solutions. Think creatively and keep an open mind, as well as considering lessons from past experiences. Consider:

Creating a list of potential ideas to solve the problem
Grouping and categorizing similar solutions
Prioritizing potential solutions based on feasibility, cost, and resources required
Involving others to share diverse opinions and inputs

Evaluating and Selecting Solutions

Evaluate each potential solution, weighing its pros and cons. To facilitate decision-making, use techniques such as:

SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)
Decision-making matrices
Pros and cons lists
Risk assessments

After evaluating, choose the most suitable solution based on effectiveness, cost, and time constraints.

Implementing and Monitoring the Solution

Implement the chosen solution and monitor its progress. Key actions include:

Communicating the solution to relevant parties
Setting timelines and milestones
Assigning tasks and responsibilities
Monitoring the solution and making adjustments as necessary
Evaluating the effectiveness of the solution after implementation

Utilize feedback from stakeholders and consider potential improvements. Remember that problem-solving is an ongoing process that can always be refined and enhanced.

Problem-Solving Techniques

During each step, you may find it helpful to utilize various problem-solving techniques, such as:

Brainstorming : A free-flowing, open-minded session where ideas are generated and listed without judgment, to encourage creativity and innovative thinking.
Root cause analysis : A method that explores the underlying causes of a problem to find the most effective solution rather than addressing superficial symptoms.
SWOT analysis : A tool used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to a problem or decision, providing a comprehensive view of the situation.
Mind mapping : A visual technique that uses diagrams to organize and connect ideas, helping to identify patterns, relationships, and possible solutions.

Brainstorming

When facing a problem, start by conducting a brainstorming session. Gather your team and encourage an open discussion where everyone contributes ideas, no matter how outlandish they may seem. This helps you:

Generate a diverse range of solutions
Encourage all team members to participate
Foster creative thinking

When brainstorming, remember to:

Reserve judgment until the session is over
Encourage wild ideas
Combine and improve upon ideas

Root Cause Analysis

For effective problem-solving, identifying the root cause of the issue at hand is crucial. Try these methods:

5 Whys : Ask “why” five times to get to the underlying cause.
Fishbone Diagram : Create a diagram representing the problem and break it down into categories of potential causes.
Pareto Analysis : Determine the few most significant causes underlying the majority of problems.

SWOT Analysis

SWOT analysis helps you examine the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats related to your problem. To perform a SWOT analysis:

List your problem’s strengths, such as relevant resources or strong partnerships.
Identify its weaknesses, such as knowledge gaps or limited resources.
Explore opportunities, like trends or new technologies, that could help solve the problem.
Recognize potential threats, like competition or regulatory barriers.

SWOT analysis aids in understanding the internal and external factors affecting the problem, which can help guide your solution.

Mind Mapping

A mind map is a visual representation of your problem and potential solutions. It enables you to organize information in a structured and intuitive manner. To create a mind map:

Write the problem in the center of a blank page.
Draw branches from the central problem to related sub-problems or contributing factors.
Add more branches to represent potential solutions or further ideas.

Mind mapping allows you to visually see connections between ideas and promotes creativity in problem-solving.

Examples of Problem Solving in Various Contexts

In the business world, you might encounter problems related to finances, operations, or communication. Applying problem-solving skills in these situations could look like:

Identifying areas of improvement in your company’s financial performance and implementing cost-saving measures
Resolving internal conflicts among team members by listening and understanding different perspectives, then proposing and negotiating solutions
Streamlining a process for better productivity by removing redundancies, automating tasks, or re-allocating resources

In educational contexts, problem-solving can be seen in various aspects, such as:

Addressing a gap in students’ understanding by employing diverse teaching methods to cater to different learning styles
Developing a strategy for successful time management to balance academic responsibilities and extracurricular activities
Seeking resources and support to provide equal opportunities for learners with special needs or disabilities

Everyday life is full of challenges that require problem-solving skills. Some examples include:

Overcoming a personal obstacle, such as improving your fitness level, by establishing achievable goals, measuring progress, and adjusting your approach accordingly
Navigating a new environment or city by researching your surroundings, asking for directions, or using technology like GPS to guide you
Dealing with a sudden change, like a change in your work schedule, by assessing the situation, identifying potential impacts, and adapting your plans to accommodate the change.
How to Resolve Employee Conflict at Work [Steps, Tips, Examples]
How to Write Inspiring Core Values? 5 Steps with Examples
30 Employee Feedback Examples (Positive & Negative)

Problem Solving And Decision Making: 10 Hacks That Managers Love

Understanding problem solving & decision making, why are problem solving and decision making skills essential in the workplace, five techniques for effective problem solving, five techniques for effective decision making, frequently asked questions.

Other Related Blogs

Steps in problem solving and decision making

Improved efficiency and productivity: Employees with strong problem solving and decision making skills are better equipped to identify and solve issues that may arise in their work. This leads to improved efficiency and productivity as they can complete their work more timely and effectively.
Improved customer satisfaction: Problem solving and decision making skills also help employees address any concerns or issues customers may have. This leads to enhanced customer satisfaction as customers feel their needs are being addressed and their problems are resolved.
Effective teamwork: When working in teams, problem solving and decision making skills are essential for effective collaboration . Groups that can effectively identify and solve problems together are more likely to successfully achieve their goals.
Innovation: Effective problem-solving and decision-making skills are also crucial for driving innovation in the workplace. Employees who think creatively and develop new solutions to problems are more likely to develop innovative ideas to move the business forward.
Risk management: Problem solving and decision making skills are also crucial for managing risk in the workplace. By identifying potential risks and developing strategies to mitigate them, employees can help minimize the negative impact of risks on the business.

Brainstorming: Brainstorming is a technique for generating creative ideas and solutions to problems. In a brainstorming session, a group of people share their thoughts and build on each other’s suggestions. The goal is to generate a large number of ideas in a short amount of time. For example, a team of engineers could use brainstorming to develop new ideas for improving the efficiency of a manufacturing process.
Root Cause Analysis: Root cause analysis is a technique for identifying the underlying cause of a problem. It involves asking “why” questions to uncover the root cause of the problem. Once the root cause is identified, steps can be taken to address it. For example, a hospital could use root cause analysis to investigate why patient falls occur and identify the root cause, such as inadequate staffing or poor lighting.
SWOT Analysis: SWOT analysis is a technique for evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to a problem or situation. It involves assessing internal and external factors that could impact the problem and identifying ways to leverage strengths and opportunities while minimizing weaknesses and threats. For example, a small business could use SWOT analysis to evaluate its market position and identify opportunities to expand its product line or improve its marketing.
Pareto Analysis: Pareto analysis is a technique for identifying the most critical problems to address. It involves ranking problems by impact and frequency and first focusing on the most significant issues. For example, a software development team could use Pareto analysis to prioritize bugs and issues to fix based on their impact on the user experience.
Decision Matrix Analysis: Decision matrix analysis evaluates alternatives and selects the best course of action. It involves creating a matrix to compare options based on criteria and weighting factors and selecting the option with the highest score. For example, a manager could use decision matrix analysis to evaluate different software vendors based on criteria such as price, features, and support and select the vendor with the best overall score.

Cost-Benefit Analysis: Cost-benefit analysis is a technique for evaluating the costs and benefits of different options. It involves comparing each option’s expected costs and benefits and selecting the one with the highest net benefit. For example, a company could use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate a new product line’s potential return on investment.
Decision Trees: Decision trees are a visual representation of the decision-making process. They involve mapping out different options and their potential outcomes and probabilities. This helps to identify the best course of action based on the likelihood of different outcomes. For example, a farmer could use a decision tree to choose crops to plant based on the expected weather patterns.
SWOT Analysis: SWOT analysis can also be used for decision making. By identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of different options, a decision maker can evaluate each option’s potential risks and benefits. For example, a business owner could use SWOT analysis to assess the potential risks and benefits of expanding into a new market.
Pros and Cons Analysis: Pros and cons analysis lists the advantages and disadvantages of different options. It involves weighing the pros and cons of each option to determine the best course of action. For example, an individual could use a pros and cons analysis to decide whether to take a job offer.
Six Thinking Hats: The six thinking hats technique is a way to think about a problem from different perspectives. It involves using six different “hats” to consider various aspects of the decision. The hats include white (facts and figures), red (emotions and feelings), black (risks and drawbacks), yellow (benefits and opportunities), green (creativity and new ideas), and blue (overview and control). For example, a team could use the six thinking hats technique to evaluate different options for a marketing campaign.

Aastha Bensla

Aastha, a passionate industrial psychologist, writer, and counselor, brings her unique expertise to Risely. With specialized knowledge in industrial psychology, Aastha offers a fresh perspective on personal and professional development. Her broad experience as an industrial psychologist enables her to accurately understand and solve problems for managers and leaders with an empathetic approach.

How strong are your decision making skills?

Find out now with the help of Risely’s free assessment for leaders and team managers.

How are problem solving and decision making related?

What is a good example of decision-making, what are the steps in problem-solving and decision-making.

Evidence Based Decision Making: 4 Proven Hacks For Managers

6 best books on decision making for managers, best decision coaches to guide you toward great choices, top 10 games for negotiation skills to make you a better leader.

Get started with computers
Learn Microsoft Office
Apply for a job
Improve my work skills
Design nice-looking docs
Getting Started
Smartphones & Tablets
Typing Tutorial
Online Learning
Basic Internet Skills
Online Safety
Social Media
Zoom Basics
Google Docs
Google Sheets
Career Planning
Resume Writing
Cover Letters
Job Search and Networking
Business Communication
Entrepreneurship 101
Careers without College
Job Hunt for Today
3D Printing
Freelancing 101
Personal Finance
Sharing Economy
Decision-Making
Graphic Design
Photography
Image Editing
Learning WordPress
Language Learning
Critical Thinking
For Educators
Translations
Staff Picks
English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making - What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking and decision-making -, what is critical thinking, critical thinking and decision-making what is critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: What is Critical Thinking?

Lesson 1: what is critical thinking, what is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot. You've probably heard it used often throughout the years whether it was in school, at work, or in everyday conversation. But when you stop to think about it, what exactly is critical thinking and how do you do it ?

Watch the video below to learn more about critical thinking.

Simply put, critical thinking is the act of deliberately analyzing information so that you can make better judgements and decisions . It involves using things like logic, reasoning, and creativity, to draw conclusions and generally understand things better.

illustration of the terms logic, reasoning, and creativity

This may sound like a pretty broad definition, and that's because critical thinking is a broad skill that can be applied to so many different situations. You can use it to prepare for a job interview, manage your time better, make decisions about purchasing things, and so much more.

The process

illustration of "thoughts" inside a human brain, with several being connected and "analyzed"

As humans, we are constantly thinking . It's something we can't turn off. But not all of it is critical thinking. No one thinks critically 100% of the time... that would be pretty exhausting! Instead, it's an intentional process , something that we consciously use when we're presented with difficult problems or important decisions.

Improving your critical thinking

illustration of the questions "What do I currently know?" and "How do I know this?"

In order to become a better critical thinker, it's important to ask questions when you're presented with a problem or decision, before jumping to any conclusions. You can start with simple ones like What do I currently know? and How do I know this? These can help to give you a better idea of what you're working with and, in some cases, simplify more complex issues.

Real-world applications

illustration of a hand holding a smartphone displaying an article that reads, "Study: Cats are better than dogs"

Let's take a look at how we can use critical thinking to evaluate online information . Say a friend of yours posts a news article on social media and you're drawn to its headline. If you were to use your everyday automatic thinking, you might accept it as fact and move on. But if you were thinking critically, you would first analyze the available information and ask some questions :

What's the source of this article?
Is the headline potentially misleading?
What are my friend's general beliefs?
Do their beliefs inform why they might have shared this?

illustration of "Super Cat Blog" and "According to survery of cat owners" being highlighted from an article on a smartphone

After analyzing all of this information, you can draw a conclusion about whether or not you think the article is trustworthy.

Critical thinking has a wide range of real-world applications . It can help you to make better decisions, become more hireable, and generally better understand the world around you.

illustration of a lightbulb, a briefcase, and the world

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-decisions/content/

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 5 min read

Six Thinking Hats®

Looking at a decision in different ways.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

What's your instinctive approach to decision making? If you're naturally optimistic, then chances are you don't always consider the potential downsides to a decision. Similarly, if you're very cautious, you might not focus on opportunities that could open up.

Whatever your gut tells you, the best decisions usually come after you've explored several ways of viewing a problem.

However, it's easy to feel confused if you try to consider multiple angles at once. And things can get even more complicated – even combative – if your whole team weighs in with different points of view.

"Six Thinking Hats" is a way of investigating an issue from a variety of perspectives, but in a clear, conflict-free way. It can be used by individuals or groups to move outside habitual ways of thinking, try out different approaches, and then think constructively about how to move forward.

In this article, we'll explain the principles behind the Six Thinking Hats technique and examine how it could improve decision making for you and your team.

Who Invented "Six Thinking Hats"?

The Six Thinking Hats approach was created by Edward de Bono , a Maltese physician, psychologist and philosopher. He used it in his work advising government agencies, but he also wanted it to be a practical tool for everyday problem solving. It first appeared in his 1985 book of the same name, which has since been revised several times. [1]

De Bono – who died in 2021 – was also the inventor of "lateral thinking," a method of solving problems indirectly, often in creative and surprising ways. Similarly, Six Thinking Hats is a way to understand and explore different types of thinking.

Six Thinking Hats for Decision Making

The Six Thinking Hats technique gets you to look at a problem in six different ways. It takes you and your team beyond any instinctive positions, so that you explore a range of perspectives. That way, you can carefully consider each one, without having to argue your case or make snap decisions about what's "right" or "wrong."

By the time you've tried out all six hats, you should have a rich collection of insights that will help you to decide your next steps.

Here's what each of the Six Thinking Hats represents:

Blue Hat: "the Conductor's Hat"

When you or your team are in blue hat mode, you focus on controlling your thinking and managing the decision-making process. You have an agenda, ask for summaries, and reach conclusions.

Green Hat: "the Creative Hat"

The green hat represents creative thinking. When you're "wearing" this hat, you explore a range of ideas and possible ways forward.

Red Hat: "the Hat for the Heart"

This hat represents feelings and instincts. When you're engaged in this type of thinking, you can express your feelings without having to justify them logically.

Yellow Hat: "the Optimist's Hat"

With yellow hat thinking, you look at issues in the most positive light possible. You accentuate the benefits and the added value that could come from your ideas.

Black Hat: "the Judge's Hat"

This hat is about being cautious and assessing risks. You employ critical judgment and explain exactly why you have concerns.

The black hat is one of the most powerful hats, but it's often overused. Make sure that you and your team can justify any critical or cautionary comments, so that this mode of thinking doesn't dominate your decision making.

White Hat: "the Factual Hat"

The white hat represents information gathering. Think about the knowledge and insights that you've collected already – but also the information you're missing, and where you can go to get it.

Reproduced with the permission of Penguin Random House U.K and the trademark and copyright holder deBono.com. To find out how to use the Six Thinking Hats®️ in teams please contact debono.com .

Some colors have cultural implications, so you may have to pick new colors for one or more of your hats. In China, for example, a green hat can mean an unfaithful spouse. And you might decide to change the black hat to grey, so as not to associate black with faultfinding.

It's fine to use any colors that are appropriate for you and your team – just as long as all six are different, and you stick with the same colors each time you use this technique.

There are several other decision-making techniques that explore problems from different angles.

The Reframing Matrix encourages you to try out a range of perspectives when you're designing a product or service. What are the key considerations from a marketing perspective, say, or from the point of view of your manufacturing team?

Constructive Controversy involves pitting different approaches against each other. This means that it's more combative than Six Thinking Hats. But it can also generate energy, help people to reconsider their positions, and result in well-tested decisions.

And Empathy Mapping is a useful tool when you want to understand the perspectives of key stakeholders, in order to incorporate them in your plans.

The Benefits of Six Thinking Hats

As well as improving the quality of your decisions, the Six Thinking Hats technique has some other benefits to offer:

More organized thinking. You can be confident that you've considered every angle, and it helps you to weigh up the information you obtain efficiently and accurately.

Improved creativity. It gets you to step away from your default positions and approaches. And comparing or combining different perspectives can sometimes spark novel thoughts .

Better thinking skills. It's a great way to strengthen important skills such as curiosity and critical thinking.

Stronger interpersonal skills. It encourages you to practice listening , questioning and answering . So it can also make you more persuasive, better at spotting when others need support, and more confident to resolve conflicts when they arise.

Greater inclusivity in teams. It requires people to set aside any preconceptions and to focus on seeing things from the same perspective for a while. Debate still happens, but it's based on shared understanding – which can help everyone to feel included.

It's important to remember that some members of your team might find some types of thinking challenging – possibly due to neurodivergence – and need reassurance or support. However, they may also excel while wearing particular hats! So use this technique as a chance to play to everyone's strengths.

De Bono's Six Thinking Hats is a powerful technique for looking at decision making from different perspectives.

It involves six distinct types of thinking, which you can do on your own or with your team. Each thinking style is represented by a different hat:

Blue Hat: organization and planning

Green Hat: creative thinking

Red Hat: feelings and instincts

Yellow Hat: benefits and values

Black Hat: risk assessment

White Hat: information gathering

By "wearing" each of the Six Thinking Hats in turn, you can gain a rich understanding of the issues you face – and the best ways forward. You also encourage everyone to be fully involved in the decision-making process.

[1] De Bono, E. (1999). “Six Thinking Hats: revised ed.,” New York: Back Bay Books.

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Adaptive leadership.

Evolving to Thrive in Complex Environments

Round-Robin Brainstorming

Allowing Everyone to Contribute

Add comment

Comments (1)

james semaj

<a href="https://beyondtodaynews.com/cobb-county-school-calendar-navigating-academic-sessions/">COBB COUNTY SCHOOL CALENDAR</a> has once again highlighted the dynamic nature of our world. The immediacy with which information is shared underscores the rapid pace of events shaping our lives. Staying informed in this fast-paced digital age is not just a choice but a necessity. As we delve into today's news, it's essential to approach the flood of information with a discerning eye. The evolving landscape of breaking stories demands our attention, urging us to sift through the noise and seek credible sources. In an era where 'today news' unfolds on our screens with unprecedented speed, the responsibility to stay informed and critically evaluate the narratives presented becomes paramount. Let's navigate this ever-changing news cycle with an inquisitive mind, ensuring that our understanding of today's events is grounded in accuracy and perspective.

Gain essential management and leadership skills

Busy schedule? No problem. Learn anytime, anywhere.

Subscribe to unlimited access to meticulously researched, evidence-based resources.

Join today and save on an annual membership!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Discover something new today

How to create psychological safety at work.

Speaking up without fear

How to Guides

Pain Points Podcast - Presentations Pt 1

How do you get better at presenting?

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Five moments of learning need.

Increase the Value of Learning Tools By Providing Them When Needed

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Soft skills
What is a credential?
Why do a credential?
How do credentials work?
Selecting your level
How will I be assessed?
Benefits for professionals
Benefits for organisations
Benefits for postgraduates

Problem solving techniques: Steps and methods

Posted on May 29, 2019

Constant disruption has become a hallmark of the modern workforce and organisations want problem solving skills to combat this. Employers need people who can respond to change – be that evolving technology, new competitors, different models for doing business, or any of the other transformations that have taken place in recent years.

In addition, problem solving techniques encompass many of the other top skills employers seek . For example, LinkedIn’s list of the most in-demand soft skills of 2019 includes creativity, collaboration and adaptability, all of which fall under the problem-solving umbrella.

Despite its importance, many employees misunderstand what the problem solving method really involves.

What constitutes effective problem solving?

Effective problem solving doesn’t mean going away and coming up with an answer immediately. In fact, this isn’t good problem solving at all, because you’ll be running with the first solution that comes into your mind, which often isn’t the best.

Instead, you should look at problem solving more as a process with several steps involved that will help you reach the best outcome. Those steps are:

Define the problem
List all the possible solutions
Evaluate the options
Select the best solution
Create an implementation plan
Communicate your solution

Let’s look at each step in a little more detail.

It's important you take the time to brainstorm and consider all your options when solving problems.

1. Define the problem

The first step to solving a problem is defining what the problem actually is – sounds simple, right? Well no. An effective problem solver will take the thoughts of everyone involved into account, but different people might have different ideas on what the root cause of the issue really is. It’s up to you to actively listen to everyone without bringing any of your own preconceived notions to the conversation. Learning to differentiate facts from opinion is an essential part of this process.

An effective problem solver will take the opinions of everyone involved into account

The same can be said of data. Depending on what the problem is, there will be varying amounts of information available that will help you work out what’s gone wrong. There should be at least some data involved in any problem, and it’s up to you to gather as much as possible and analyse it objectively.

2. List all the possible solutions

Once you’ve identified what the real issue is, it’s time to think of solutions. Brainstorming as many solutions as possible will help you arrive at the best answer because you’ll be considering all potential options and scenarios. You should take everyone’s thoughts into account when you’re brainstorming these ideas, as well as all the insights you’ve gleaned from your data analysis. It also helps to seek input from others at this stage, as they may come up with solutions you haven’t thought of.

Depending on the type of problem, it can be useful to think of both short-term and long-term solutions, as some of your options may take a while to implement.

One of the best problem solving techniques is brainstorming a number of different solutions and involving affected parties in this process.

3. Evaluate the options

Each option will have pros and cons, and it’s important you list all of these, as well as how each solution could impact key stakeholders. Once you’ve narrowed down your options to three or four, it’s often a good idea to go to other employees for feedback just in case you’ve missed something. You should also work out how each option ties in with the broader goals of the business.

There may be a way to merge two options together in order to satisfy more people.

4. Select an option

Only now should you choose which solution you’re going to go with. What you decide should be whatever solves the problem most effectively while also taking the interests of everyone involved into account. There may be a way to merge two options together in order to satisfy more people.

5. Create an implementation plan

At this point you might be thinking it’s time to sit back and relax – problem solved, right? There are actually two more steps involved if you want your problem solving method to be truly effective. The first is to create an implementation plan. After all, if you don’t carry out your solution effectively, you’re not really solving the problem at all.

Create an implementation plan on how you will put your solution into practice. One problem solving technique that many use here is to introduce a testing and feedback phase just to make sure the option you’ve selected really is the most viable. You’ll also want to include any changes to your solution that may occur in your implementation plan, as well as how you’ll monitor compliance and success.

6. Communicate your solution

There’s one last step to consider as part of the problem solving methodology, and that’s communicating your solution . Without this crucial part of the process, how is anyone going to know what you’ve decided? Make sure you communicate your decision to all the people who might be impacted by it. Not everyone is going to be 100 per cent happy with it, so when you communicate you must give them context. Explain exactly why you’ve made that decision and how the pros mean it’s better than any of the other options you came up with.

Prove your problem solving skills with Deakin

Employers are increasingly seeking soft skills, but unfortunately, while you can show that you’ve got a degree in a subject, it’s much harder to prove you’ve got proficiency in things like problem solving skills. But this is changing thanks to Deakin’s micro-credentials. These are university-level micro-credentials that provide an authoritative and third-party assessment of your capabilities in a range of areas, including problem solving. Reach out today for more information .

More From Forbes

Tips and techniques for problem-solving and decision-making.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

Divya Parekh , of The DP Group, covers business growth, storytelling, high-impact performance and authority building.

Are you struggling to find effective solutions to problems you face in your professional or entrepreneurial ventures? Are you often indecisive when faced with complex decisions?

The ability to solve problems and make decisions quickly and effectively can mean the difference between success and failure. There are two main approaches to problem-solving and decision-making: vertical thinking and horizontal thinking. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, so understanding the differences between them can help you apply the right method at the right time.

Let's look at a few case studies to understand the very different benefits of these two approaches.

Vertical Thinking For Decision-Making

First, let's take Jane, the CFO of a financial services company. She needs to decide whether to invest in a new company software system.

Jane gathers all the relevant data about the software system and analyzes it thoroughly. She compares the cost of the system to the potential benefits, evaluates the risks involved and consults with subject matter experts. After careful consideration, she decides the benefits outweigh the costs and risks, and the company should invest in the software system.

This is vertical thinking: making a well-informed decision based on a thorough analysis of the data. Vertical thinking is especially useful in situations where there is a clear goal and a need for a precise, data-driven approach. Experts often use it in fields like finance, where decisions depend heavily on facts and figures.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans, horizontal thinking for problem-solving.

Let's move on to Sophie, the head of marketing for a fashion company. The company has been struggling to attract new customers.

Sophie sets up a brainstorming meeting with different department heads. They come up with a variety of creative solutions based on their diverse perspectives. One idea that stands out is to partner with a popular social media influencer to promote the company's products. The team works together to develop a plan to reach out to the influencer and negotiate a partnership.

This is horizontal thinking: working with a team to generate a variety of ideas and consider different perspectives to find an innovative solution. Horizontal thinking is a great approach for problem-solving when the problem is complex and there may be multiple solutions or approaches. Creative professionals, especially in marketing, advertising and designing, highly value this approach.

How Emotions Affect These Approaches

Over several years of coaching, I've noticed that emotions can play a significant role in problem-solving and decision-making, regardless of the thinking style used.

For instance, when using vertical thinking, emotions such as frustration and impatience can arise when a person or team has been working on a problem for an extended period with no clear solution. Conversely, when a team lands on a solution, there can be a sense of relief and accomplishment.

Similarly, when using horizontal thinking, emotions such as excitement and optimism can arise during a brainstorming session when new and creative ideas are being generated. However, disappointment or frustration can also arise when an idea fails to work.

It's important to recognize and acknowledge these emotions as they can affect team dynamics and ultimately, the success of the problem-solving process. I encourage leaders to create a safe and supportive environment where team members feel comfortable expressing their emotions and concerns.

Make These Thinking Styles Work For You

In my experience, a personalized approach that balances both vertical and horizontal thinking can help manage emotions and any other issues that arise effectively. By using vertical thinking to identify specific problems and solutions, and horizontal thinking to generate creative ideas, you can create a problem-solving process that encourages collaboration, creativity and innovation while minimizing negative emotions.

Are you ready to take your problem-solving and decision-making skills to the next level?

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

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

14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Learning objectives.

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

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

Group Problem Solving

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

Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

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

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

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

Group problem solving can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.

Muness Castle – Problem Solving – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Group Problem-Solving Process

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

Step 1: Define the Problem

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

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

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

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

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

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

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

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

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

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

Once a solution has been reached and the group has the “green light” to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making sure to consider possible consequences and address them as needed.

Jocko Benoit – Prodigal Light – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

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

“Getting Competent”

Problem Solving and Group Presentations

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

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

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

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

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

Decision Making in Groups

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

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

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

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

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

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus one.

Becky McCray – Voting – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

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

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

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

Table 14.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques

“Getting Critical”

Six Hats Method of Decision Making

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

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

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

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

Influences on Decision Making

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

Situational Influences on Decision Making

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

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

The urgency of a decision can have a major influence on the decision-making process. As a situation becomes more urgent, it requires more specific decision-making methods and types of communication.

Judith E. Bell – Urgent – CC BY-SA 2.0.

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

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

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

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious (Spranger, 1928).

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

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

Personality affects decision making. For example, “economic” decision makers decide based on what is practical and useful.

One Way Stock – Tough Decisions Ahead – CC BY-ND 2.0.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

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

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

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

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

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

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

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing Chapter 8 “Culture and Communication” will give you useful knowledge to help you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every problem also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.

The group problem-solving process has five steps:

Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.

Several factors influence the decision-making process:

Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
Scenario 1. Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
Scenario 1: Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
Scenario 2: Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
Scenario 3: Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
Scenario 4: Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Adams, K., and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 220–21.

Allen, B. J., Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity , 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5.

Bormann, E. G., and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication , 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13.

Clarke, G., “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.

Cragan, J. F., and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach , 3rd ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1991), 77–78.

de Bono, E., Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985).

Delbecq, A. L., and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92.

Haslett, B. B., and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research , ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133.

Napier, R. W., and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292.

Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959).

Spranger, E., Types of Men (New York: Steckert, 1928).

Stanton, C., “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills , November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012, http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Thomas, D. C., “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63.

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

Problem Solving and Decision Making

Cite this chapter.

Linda Drake Gobbo 3

Part of the book series: Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation ((AGDN,volume 3))

7667 Accesses

Problem solving and decision making in multicultural work teams are the last of the skill areas to be covered in this book. This topic will be discussed from the cultural, individual, and organizational levels of multicultural team development, building on the frameworks that have been presented in previous chapters. Many theorists consider problem solving and decision making as synonymous-all decisions are made in response to a problem or opportunity. Simply stated, if problem solving is the process used to find a solution to the problem, challenge, or opportunity. However, how one solves problems can be quite varied. An individual can use analytical tools based on logic, deduction, or induction, or intuition based on an understanding of principles, or creative thinking. Problem-solving abilities and approaches may vary considerably, actually using different paradigms or frameworks. In this chapter one approach, with the steps and methods to do problem solving in work teams, will be presented.

There are six steps to the problem-solving model described and demonstrated in this chapter. Several of those steps within the model are used for decisionmaking, and are covered as well. How a team makes the decision, and who on the team makes it are important elements and will also be discussed. As prior chapters have noted, membership of multicultural teams varies greatly. The procedures each member follows, the different value orientations guiding their behavior (Smith et al. 2002), the nature of the tasks they must complete, and the communication tools they employ (face-to-face and/or technology-based) all impact how they approach problem solving and decision making. When done effectively, problem solving, which includes decision making, moves through all the steps described here equally, engaging the knowledge and skills of all team members.

This chapter will first present theoretical frameworks for problem solving, then define the steps that comprise problem solving and decision making within them. This will be followed by a discussion of the cultural variations, and impact of individual styles and societal assumptions on decision-making. Shared mental models and consensus are offered as methods to equalize participation in team decision making, and an overview of other methods provided. The last section will look at ways to coordinate the stages of team development with the variety of problemsolving and decision-making techniques in order to maximize a team’s effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Adler, N.J. (2002). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Google Scholar

Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D. and Stavros, J.M. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change. Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing.

Enayati, J. (2001). The research: Effective communication and decision-making in diverse groups. In Hemmati, M. (Ed.), Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability-Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. London, England: Earthscan.

Gardenswartz, L. and Rowe, A. (2003). In L. Gardenswartz and A. Rowe (Eds.), Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on the Power of Diversity (1st ed.). Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

Halverson, C.B. (2004). Effective Multicultural Teams (5th ed.). Brattleboro, VT: School for International Training.

Harrington-Macklin, D. (1994). The Team Building Tool Kit: Tips, Tactics, and Rules for Effective Workplace Teams. New York: American Management Association.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Jeffery, A.B., Maes, J.D. and Bratton-Jeffery, M.F. (2005). Improving team decision-making performance with collaborative modeling. [Electronic version]. Team Performance Management, 11 (1/2), 40–50. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from the Emerald In sight database.

Article Google Scholar

Kayser, T.A. (1994). Building Team Power: How to Unleash the Collaborative Genius of Work Teams. New York: Irwin.

Kelly, K.P. (1994). Team Decision Making Techniques. Irvine, CA: Richard Chang Associates.

Kline, T. (1999). In M. Holt, D. Ullius and P. Berkman (Eds.), Remaking Teams: The Revolutionary Research-based Guide That Puts Theory into Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Magruder Watkins, J. and Mohr, B.J. (2001). Appreciative Inquiry, Change at the Speed of Imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfieffer.

Mathieu, J., Heffner, T., Goodwin, G., Cannon-Bowers, J. and Salas, E. (2005). Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–56.

McFadzean, E. (2002). Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: Part 1—a conceptual model. [Electronic version]. Management Decision, 40(5), 463–475. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from the Emerald Insight database.

McFadzean, E. (2002). Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: Part 2-facili-tator competencies. [Electronic version]. Management Decision, 40(6), 537–551. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from the Emerald Insight database.

McKenna, R.J. and Martin-Smith, B. (2005). Decision making as a simplification process: New conceptual perspectives.[Electronic version]. Management Decision, 43(6), 821–836. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from the Emerald Insight database.

Sagie, A. and Akcan, Z. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision-making in organizations. Human Relations, 56(4), 453–473.

Selart, M. (2005). Understanding the role of locus of control in consultative decision-making: A case study. [Electronic version]. Management Decision, 43(3), 397–412. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from the Emerald Insight database.

Simon, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999). Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (6), 662–673.

Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F. and Schwartz, S.H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior. [Electronic version]. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 188–208.

Tomlinson, S. (1999). Comparison of consensus Japanese style and Quaker style. [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/scott2.shtml

Watkins, J.M. and Mohr, B.J. (2001). Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Whitney, D. and Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School for International Training, Brattleboro, VT, USA

Linda Drake Gobbo

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Claire B. Halverson & S. Aqeel Tirmizi &

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Gobbo, L.D. (2008). Problem Solving and Decision Making. In: Halverson, C.B., Tirmizi, S.A. (eds) Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory and Practice. Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6957-4_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6957-4_9

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-1-4020-6956-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-6957-4

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

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

Share Podcast

A Better Framework for Solving Tough Problems

Start with trust and end with speed.

Apple Podcasts

When it comes to solving complicated problems, the default for many organizational leaders is to take their time to work through the issues at hand. Unfortunately, that often leads to patchwork solutions or problems not truly getting resolved.

But Anne Morriss offers a different framework. In this episode, she outlines a five-step process for solving any problem and explains why starting with trust and ending with speed is so important for effective change leadership. As she says, “Let’s get into dialogue with the people who are also impacted by the problem before we start running down the path of solving it.”

Morriss is an entrepreneur and leadership coach. She’s also the coauthor of the book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems .

Key episode topics include: strategy, decision making and problem solving, strategy execution, managing people, collaboration and teams, trustworthiness, organizational culture, change leadership, problem solving, leadership.

HBR On Strategy curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock new ways of doing business. New episodes every week.

Listen to the full HBR IdeaCast episode: How to Solve Tough Problems Better and Faster (2023)
Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast
Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org .

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR On Strategy , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock new ways of doing business.

When it comes to solving complicated problems, many leaders only focus on the most apparent issues. Unfortunately that often leads to patchwork or partial solutions. But Anne Morriss offers a different framework that aims to truly tackle big problems by first leaning into trust and then focusing on speed.

Morriss is an entrepreneur and leadership coach. She’s also the co-author of the book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems . In this episode, she outlines a five-step process for solving any problem. Some, she says, can be solved in a week, while others take much longer. She also explains why starting with trust and ending with speed is so important for effective change leadership.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in October 2023. Here it is.

CURT NICKISCH: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Curt Nickisch.

Problems can be intimidating. Sure, some problems are fun to dig into. You roll up your sleeves, you just take care of them; but others, well, they’re complicated. Sometimes it’s hard to wrap your brain around a problem, much less fix it.

And that’s especially true for leaders in organizations where problems are often layered and complex. They sometimes demand technical, financial, or interpersonal knowledge to fix. And whether it’s avoidance on the leaders’ part or just the perception that a problem is systemic or even intractable, problems find a way to endure, to keep going, to keep being a problem that everyone tries to work around or just puts up with.

But today’s guest says that just compounds it and makes the problem harder to fix. Instead, she says, speed and momentum are key to overcoming a problem.

Anne Morriss is an entrepreneur, leadership coach and founder of the Leadership Consortium and with Harvard Business School Professor Francis Frei, she wrote the new book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leaders Guide to Solving Hard Problems . Anne, welcome back to the show.

ANNE MORRISS: Curt, thank you so much for having me.

CURT NICKISCH: So, to generate momentum at an organization, you say that you really need speed and trust. We’ll get into those essential ingredients some more, but why are those two essential?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, the essential pattern that we observed was that the most effective change leaders out there were building trust and speed, and it didn’t seem to be a well-known observation. We all know the phrase, “Move fast and break things,” but the people who were really getting it right were moving fast and fixing things, and that was really our jumping off point. So when we dug into the pattern, what we observed was they were building trust first and then speed. This foundation of trust was what allowed them to fix more things and break fewer.

CURT NICKISCH: Trust sounds like a slow thing, right? If you talk about building trust, that is something that takes interactions, it takes communication, it takes experiences. Does that run counter to the speed idea?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, this issue of trust is something we’ve been looking at for over a decade. One of the headlines in our research is it’s actually something we’re building and rebuilding and breaking all the time. And so instead of being this precious, almost farbege egg, it’s this thing that is constantly in motion and this thing that we can really impact when we’re deliberate about our choices and have some self-awareness around where it’s breaking down and how it’s breaking down.

CURT NICKISCH: You said break trust in there, which is intriguing, right? That you may have to break trust to build trust. Can you explain that a little?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, well, I’ll clarify. It’s not that you have to break it in order to build it. It’s just that we all do it some of the time. Most of us are trusted most of the time. Most of your listeners I imagine are trusted most of the time, but all of us have a pattern where we break trust or where we don’t build as much as could be possible.

CURT NICKISCH: I want to talk about speed, this other essential ingredient that’s so intriguing, right? Because you think about solving hard problems as something that just takes a lot of time and thinking and coordination and planning and designing. Explain what you mean by it? And also, just how we maybe approach problems wrong by taking them on too slowly?

ANNE MORRISS: Well, Curt, no one has ever said to us, “I wish I had taken longer and done less.” We hear the opposite all the time, by the way. So what we really set out to do was to create a playbook that anyone can use to take less time to do more of the things that are going to make your teams and organizations stronger.

And the way we set up the book is okay, it’s really a five step process. Speed is the last step. It’s the payoff for the hard work you’re going to do to figure out your problem, build or rebuild trust, expand the team in thoughtful and strategic ways, and then tell a real and compelling story about the change you’re leading.

Only then do you get to go fast, but that’s an essential part of the process, and we find that either people under emphasize it or speed has gotten a bad name in this world of moving fast and breaking things. And part of our mission for sure was to rehabilitate speed’s reputation because it is an essential part of the change leader’s equation. It can be the difference between good intentions and getting anything done at all.

CURT NICKISCH: You know, the fact that nobody ever tells you, “I wish we had done less and taken more time.” I think we all feel that, right? Sometimes we do something and then realize, “Oh, that wasn’t that hard and why did it take me so long to do it? And I wish I’d done this a long time ago.” Is it ever possible to solve a problem too quickly?

ANNE MORRISS: Absolutely. And we see that all the time too. What we push people to do in those scenarios is really take a look at the underlying issue because in most cases, the solution is not to take your foot off the accelerator per se and slow down. The solution is to get into the underlying problem. So if it’s burnout or a strategic disconnect between what you’re building and the marketplace you’re serving, what we find is the anxiety that people attach to speed or the frustration people attach to speed is often misplaced.

CURT NICKISCH: What is a good timeline to think about solving a problem then? Because if we by default take too long or else jump ahead and we don’t fix it right, what’s a good target time to have in your mind for how long solving a problem should take?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, we’re playful in the book and talking about the idea that many problems can be solved in a week. We set the book up five chapters. They’re titled Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and we’re definitely having fun with that. And yet, if you count the hours in a week, there are a lot of them. Many of our problems, if you were to spend a focused 40 hours of effort on a problem, you’re going to get pretty far.

But our main message is, listen, of course it’s going to depend on the nature of the problem, and you’re going to take weeks and maybe even some cases months to get to the other side. What we don’t want you to do is take years, which tends to be our default timeline for solving hard problems.

CURT NICKISCH: So you say to start with identifying the problem that’s holding you back, seems kind of obvious. But where do companies go right and wrong with this first step of just identifying the problem that’s holding you back?

ANNE MORRISS: And our goal is that all of these are going to feel obvious in retrospect. The problem is we skip over a lot of these steps and this is why we wanted to underline them. So this one is really rooted in our observation and I think the pattern of our species that we tend to be overconfident in the quality of our thoughts, particularly when it comes to diagnosing problems.

And so we want to invite you to start in a very humble and curious place, which tends not to be our default mode when we’re showing up for work. We convince ourselves that we’re being paid for our judgment. That’s exactly what gets reinforced everywhere. And so we tend to counterintuitively, given what we just talked about, we tend to move too quickly through the diagnostic phase.

CURT NICKISCH: “I know what to do, that’s why you hired me.”

ANNE MORRISS: Exactly. “I know what to do. That’s why you hired me. I’ve seen this before. I have a plan. Follow me.” We get rewarded for the expression of confidence and clarity. And so what we’re inviting people to do here is actually pause and really lean into what are the root causes of the problem you’re seeing? What are some alternative explanations? Let’s get into dialogue with the people who are also impacted by the problem before we start running down the path of solving it.

CURT NICKISCH: So what do you recommend for this step, for getting to the root of the problem? What are questions you should ask? What’s the right thought process? What do you do on Monday of the week?

ANNE MORRISS: In our experience of doing this work, people tend to undervalue the power of conversation, particularly with other people in the organization. So we will often advocate putting together a team of problem solvers, make it a temporary team, really pull in people who have a particular perspective on the problem and create the space, make it as psychologically safe as you can for people to really, as Chris Argyris so beautifully articulated, discuss the undiscussable.

And so the conditions for that are going to look different in every organization depending on the problem, but if you can get a space where smart people who have direct experience of a problem are in a room and talking honestly with each other, you can make an extraordinary amount of progress, certainly in a day.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah, that gets back to the trust piece.

ANNE MORRISS: Definitely.

CURT NICKISCH: How do you like to start that meeting, or how do you like to talk about it? I’m just curious what somebody on that team might hear in that meeting, just to get the sense that it’s psychologically safe, you can discuss the undiscussable and you’re also focusing on the identification part. What’s key to communicate there?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, we sometimes encourage people to do a little bit of data gathering before those conversations. So the power of a quick anonymous survey around whatever problem you’re solving, but also be really thoughtful about the questions you’re going to ask in the moment. So a little bit of preparation can go a long way and a little bit of thoughtfulness about the power dynamic. So who’s going to walk in there with license to speak and who’s going to hold back? So being thoughtful about the agenda, about the questions you’re asking about the room, about the facilitation, and then courage is a very infectious emotion.

So if you can early on create the conditions for people to show up bravely in that conversation, then the chance that you’re going to get good information and that you’re going to walk out of that room with new insight in the problem that you didn’t have when you walked in is extraordinarily high.

CURT NICKISCH: Now, in those discussions, you may have people who have different perspectives on what the problem really is. They also bear different costs of addressing the problem or solving it. You talked about the power dynamic, but there’s also an unfairness dynamic of who’s going to actually have to do the work to take care of it, and I wonder how you create a culture in that meeting where it’s the most productive?

ANNE MORRISS: For sure, the burden of work is not going to be equitably distributed around the room. But I would say, Curt, the dynamic that we see most often is that people are deeply relieved that hard problems are being addressed. So it really can create, and more often than not in our experience, it does create this beautiful flywheel of action, creativity, optimism. Often when problems haven’t been addressed, there is a fair amount of anxiety in the organization, frustration, stagnation. And so credible movement towards action and progress is often the best antidote. So even if the plan isn’t super clear yet, if it’s credible, given who’s in the room and their decision rights and mandate, if there’s real momentum coming out of that to make progress, then that tends to be deeply energizing to people.

CURT NICKISCH: I wonder if there’s an organization that you’ve worked with that you could talk about how this rolled out and how this took shape?

ANNE MORRISS: When we started working with Uber, that was wrestling with some very public issues of culture and trust with a range of stakeholders internally, the organization, also external, that work really started with a campaign of listening and really trying to understand where trust was breaking down from the perspective of these stakeholders?

So whether it was female employees or regulators or riders who had safety concerns getting into the car with a stranger. This work, it starts with an honest internal dialogue, but often the problem has threads that go external. And so bringing that same commitment to curiosity and humility and dialogue to anyone who’s impacted by the problem is the fastest way to surface what’s really going on.

CURT NICKISCH: There’s a step in this process that you lay out and that’s communicating powerfully as a leader. So we’ve heard about listening and trust building, but now you’re talking about powerful communication. How do you do this and why is it maybe this step in the process rather than the first thing you do or the last thing you do?

ANNE MORRISS: So in our process, again, it’s the days of the week. On Monday you figured out the problem. Tuesday you really got into the sandbox in figuring out what a good enough plan is for building trust. Wednesday, step three, you made it better. You created an even better plan, bringing in new perspectives. Thursday, this fourth step is the day we’re saying you got to go get buy-in. You got to bring other people along. And again, this is a step where we see people often underinvest in the power and payoff of really executing it well.

CURT NICKISCH: How does that go wrong?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, people don’t know the why. Human behavior and the change in human behavior really depends on a strong why. It’s not just a selfish, “What’s in it for me?” Although that’s helpful, but where are we going? I may be invested in a status quo and I need to understand, okay, if you’re going to ask me to change, if you’re going to invite me into this uncomfortable place of doing things differently, why am I here? Help me understand it and articulate the way forward and language that not only I can understand, but also that’s going to be motivating to me.

CURT NICKISCH: And who on my team was part of this process and all that kind of stuff?

ANNE MORRISS: Oh, yeah. I may have some really important questions that may be in the way of my buy-in and commitment to this plan. So certainly creating a space where those questions can be addressed is essential. But what we found is that there is an architecture of a great change story, and it starts with honoring the past, honoring the starting place. Sometimes we’re so excited about the change and animated about the change that what has happened before or what is even happening in the present tense is low on our list of priorities.

Or we want to label it bad, because that’s the way we’ve thought about the change, but really pausing and honoring what came before you and all the reasonable decisions that led up to it, I think can be really helpful to getting people emotionally where you want them to be willing to be guided by you. Going back to Uber, when Dara Khosrowshahi came in.

CURT NICKISCH: This is the new CEO.

ANNE MORRISS: The new CEO.

CURT NICKISCH: Replaced Travis Kalanick, the founder and first CEO, yeah.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, and had his first all-hands meeting. One of his key messages, and this is a quote, was that he was going to retain the edge that had made Uber, “A force of nature.” And in that meeting, the crowd went wild because this is also a company that had been beaten up publicly for months and months and months, and it was a really powerful choice. And his predecessor, Travis was in the room, and he also honored Travis’ incredible work and investment in bringing the company to the place where it was.

And I would use words like grace to also describe those choices, but there’s also an incredible strategic value to naming the starting place for everybody in the room because in most cases, most people in that room played a role in getting to that starting place, and you’re acknowledging that.

CURT NICKISCH: You can call it grace. Somebody else might call it diplomatic or strategic. But yeah, I guess like it or not, it’s helpful to call out and honor the complexity of the way things have been done and also the change that’s happening.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, and the value. Sometimes honoring the past is also owning what didn’t work or what wasn’t working for stakeholders or segments of the employee team, and we see that around culture change. Sometimes you’ve got to acknowledge that it was not an equitable environment, but whatever the worker, everyone in that room is bringing that pass with them. So again, making it discussable and using it as the jumping off place is where we advise people to start.

Then you’ve earned the right to talk about the change mandate, which we suggest using clear and compelling language about the why. “This is what happened, this is where we are, this is the good and the bad of it, and here’s the case for change.”

And then the last part, which is to describe a rigorous and optimistic way forward. It’s a simple past, present, future arc, which will be familiar to human beings. We love stories as human beings. It’s among the most powerful currency we have to make sense of the world.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah. Chronological is a pretty powerful order.

ANNE MORRISS: Right. But again, the change leaders we see really get it right, are investing an incredible amount of time into the storytelling part of their job. Ursula Burns, the Head of Xerox is famous for the months and years she spent on the road just telling the story of Xerox’s change, its pivot into services to everyone who would listen, and that was a huge part of her success.

CURT NICKISCH: So Friday or your fifth step, you end with empowering teams and removing roadblocks. That seems obvious, but it’s critical. Can you dig into that a little bit?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Friday is the fun day. Friday’s the release of energy into the system. Again, you’ve now earned the right to go fast. You have a plan, you’re pretty confident it’s going to work. You’ve told the story of change the organization, and now you get to sprint. So this is about really executing with urgency, and it’s about a lot of the tactics of speed is where we focus in the book. So the tactics of empowerment, making tough strategic trade-offs so that your priorities are clear and clearly communicated, creating mechanisms to fast-track progress. At Etsy, CEO Josh Silverman, he labeled these projects ambulances. It’s an unfortunate metaphor, but it’s super memorable. These are the products that get to speed out in front of the other ones because the stakes are high and the clock is sticking.

CURT NICKISCH: You pull over and let it go by.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, exactly. And so we have to agree as an organization on how to do something like that. And so we see lots of great examples both in young organizations and big complex biotech companies with lots of regulatory guardrails have still found ways to do this gracefully.

And I think we end with this idea of conflict debt, which is a term we really love. Leanne Davey, who’s a team scholar and researcher, and anyone in a tech company will recognize the idea of tech debt, which is this weight the organization drags around until they resolve it. Conflict debt is a beautiful metaphor because it is this weight that we drag around and slows us down until we decide to clean it up and fix it. The organizations that are really getting speed right have figured out either formally or informally, how to create an environment where conflict and disagreements can be gracefully resolved.

CURT NICKISCH: Well, let’s talk about this speed more, right? Because I think this is one of those places that maybe people go wrong or take too long, and then you lose the awareness of the problem, you lose that urgency. And then that also just makes it less effective, right? It’s not just about getting the problem solved as quickly as possible. It’s also just speed in some ways helps solve the problem.

ANNE MORRISS: Oh, yeah. It really is the difference between imagining the change you want to lead and really being able to bring it to life. Speed is the thing that unlocks your ability to lead change. It needs a foundation, and that’s what Monday through Thursday is all about, steps one through four, but the finish line is executing with urgency, and it’s that urgency that releases the system’s energy, that communicates your priorities, that creates the conditions for your team to make progress.

CURT NICKISCH: Moving fast is something that entrepreneurs and tech companies certainly understand, but there’s also this awareness that with big companies, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to turn the aircraft carrier around, right? Is speed relative when you get at those levels, or do you think this is something that any company should be able to apply equally?

ANNE MORRISS: We think this applies to any company. The culture really lives at the level of team. So we believe you can make a tremendous amount of progress even within your circle of control as a team leader. I want to bring some humility to this and careful of words like universal, but we do think there’s some universal truths here around the value of speed, and then some of the byproducts like keeping fantastic people. Your best people want to solve problems, they want to execute, they want to make progress and speed, and the ability to do that is going to be a variable in their own equation of whether they stay or they go somewhere else where they can have an impact.

CURT NICKISCH: Right. They want to accomplish something before they go or before they retire or finish something out. And if you’re able to just bring more things on the horizon and have it not feel like it’s going to be another two years to do something meaningful.

ANNE MORRISS: People – I mean, they want to make stuff happen and they want to be around the energy and the vitality of making things happen, which again, is also a super infectious phenomenon. One of the most important jobs of a leader, we believe, is to set the metabolic pace of their teams and organizations. And so what we really dig into on Friday is, well, what does that look like to speed something up? What are the tactics of that?

CURT NICKISCH: I wonder if that universal truth, that a body in motion stays in motion applies to organizations, right? If an organization in motion stays in motion, there is something to that.

ANNE MORRISS: Absolutely.

CURT NICKISCH: Do you have a favorite client story to share, just where you saw speed just become a bit of a flywheel or just a positive reinforcement loop for more positive change at the organization?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. We work with a fair number of organizations that are on fire. We do a fair amount of firefighting, but we also less dramatically do a lot of fire prevention. So we’re brought into organizations that are working well and want to get better, looking out on the horizon. That work is super gratifying, and there is always a component of, well, how do we speed this up?

What I love about that work is there’s often already a high foundation of trust, and so it’s, well, how do we maintain that foundation but move this flywheel, as you said, even faster? And it’s really energizing because often there’s a lot of pent-up energy that… There’s a lot of loyalty to the organization, but often it’s also frustration and pent-up energy. And so when that gets released, when good people get the opportunity to sprint for the first time in a little while, it’s incredibly energizing, not just for us, but for the whole organization.

CURT NICKISCH: Anne, this is great. I think finding a way to solve problems better but also faster is going to be really helpful. So thanks for coming on the show to talk about it.

ANNE MORRISS: Oh, Curt, it was such a pleasure. This is my favorite conversation. I’m delighted to have it anytime.

HANNAH BATES: That was entrepreneur, leadership coach, and author Anne Morriss – in conversation with Curt Nickisch on HBR IdeaCast.

We’ll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about business strategy from Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review.

When you’re ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos with the world’s top business and management experts, you’ll find it all at HBR.org.

This episode was produced by Mary Dooe, Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Special thanks to Rob Eckhardt, Maureen Hoch, Erica Truxler, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener. See you next week.

Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about strategy.

Decision making and problem solving
Strategy execution
Leadership and managing people
Collaboration and teams
Trustworthiness
Organizational culture

Partner Center

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Fostering human learning in sequential decision-making: Understanding the role of evaluative feedback

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Piyush Gupta,
Subir Biswas,
Vaibhav Srivastava

Published: May 28, 2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949
Peer Review
Reader Comments

Cognitive rehabilitation, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) skill acquisition, and coaching games such as chess often require tutoring decision-making strategies. The advancement of AI-driven tutoring systems for facilitating human learning requires an understanding of the impact of evaluative feedback on human decision-making and skill development. To this end, we conduct human experiments using Amazon Mechanical Turk to study the influence of evaluative feedback on human decision-making in sequential tasks. In these experiments, participants solve the Tower of Hanoi puzzle and receive AI-generated feedback while solving it. We examine how this feedback affects their learning and skill transfer to related tasks. Additionally, treating humans as noisy optimal agents, we employ maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning to analyze the effect of feedback on the implicit human reward structure that guides their decision making. Lastly, we explore various computational models to understand how people incorporate evaluative feedback into their decision-making processes. Our findings underscore that humans perceive evaluative feedback as indicative of their long-term strategic success, thus aiding in skill acquisition and transfer in sequential decision-making tasks. Moreover, we demonstrate that evaluative feedback fosters a more structured and organized learning experience compared to learning without feedback. Furthermore, our results indicate that providing intermediate goals alone does not significantly enhance human learning outcomes.

Citation: Gupta P, Biswas S, Srivastava V (2024) Fostering human learning in sequential decision-making: Understanding the role of evaluative feedback. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0303949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949

Editor: Rei Akaishi, RIKEN CBS: RIKEN Noshinkei Kagaku Kenkyu Center, JAPAN

Received: November 16, 2023; Accepted: May 2, 2024; Published: May 28, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Gupta et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data and code is publicly available at https://github.com/piyushgupta221/Decision_making_ToH .

Funding: This work has been supported in part by the NSF awards IIS-1734272 and ECCS-2024649. The analysis portion of this work is supported in part by the ONR award N00014-22-1-2813. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1 Introduction

The integration of advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms and affordable Internet of Things (IoT) devices has led to the widespread use of these technologies in various personal and professional devices. AI algorithms can handle complex decision-making challenges and support individuals in achieving their learning goals. However, it remains uncertain if embedding intelligent technology in these devices enhances individuals’ reasoning and decision-making abilities. To this end, we explore the potential benefits of offering feedback derived from AI’s optimal policies in the context of sequential decision-making tasks. Our primary goal is to evaluate whether this feedback can effectively enhance an individual’s performance in a specific task and whether the acquired knowledge and skills can be readily transferred to related tasks. Through this study, we aim to uncover the influence of AI-generated evaluative feedback on human decision-making.

The examination of the interaction between AI and embodied human intelligence has far-reaching implications for various domains such as cognitive rehabilitation after brain injuries or strokes [ 1 , 2 ], sports coaching, surgical training, driving instruction and human-supervisory systems [ 3 – 5 ]. The design of automated tutoring systems for assisting humans in learning new tasks has been a topic of significant interest [ 6 – 13 ]. Historically, these systems have been based on the manual coding of domain knowledge, which is then translated into a human-readable format. Recent works [ 8 ] have started to explore machine-learning approaches to design automated tutoring systems but do not account for human learning dynamics. Some researchers have also examined the role of cognitive architecture in the design of effective tutoring systems [ 14 , 15 ], yet these efforts still primarily rely on traditional methods of manual coding of domain knowledge.

In this work, we focus on sequential decision-making tasks [ 16 , 17 ] that inherently present significant cognitive challenges. They require continual decision-making at each time step, with each choice potentially influencing future states and overall outcomes. These tasks involve navigating the exploration-exploitation trade-off [ 18 – 20 ], which pertains to deciding whether to act based on current knowledge or to explore in order to enhance that knowledge. Proficiency in these tasks can significantly enhance problem-solving skills.

We selected the Tower of Hanoi (ToH) puzzle [ 21 – 23 ] as our choice for the sequential decision-making task. This choice is motivated by the simplicity of the ToH task, enabling efficient learning and evaluation within a reasonable timeframe for our experiment. Nonetheless, it’s essential to note that the framework discussed in our work is broadly applicable and can be generalized to other complex sequential decision-making tasks. In ToH, various-sized disks are arranged on three pegs, and the objective is to reach a specific disk configuration by moving one disk at a time. Importantly, only the uppermost disk on a peg can be moved, and larger disks cannot be placed on top of the smaller ones. Decision-making in ToH has been frequently employed in psychological research, serving as a valuable tool for examining developmental progress in children and adolescents [ 24 ]. In the cognitive assessment domain, ToH is instrumental for gauging visual-spatial and complex problem-solving capabilities in both adults [ 25 ] and children [ 26 ]. Solving the ToH task not only requires strong cognitive skills but also relies heavily on executive functions, especially planning [ 27 ]. Planning is essential for tackling complex reasoning tasks as it involves controlling impulsive actions and prioritizing strategic problem-solving.

In this study, we explore the impact of AI-generated evaluative feedback on human decision-making, specifically within the context of the ToH puzzle. The AI agent learns the optimal ToH policy and provides evaluative feedback to guide human participants. We evaluate various forms of feedback on decision-making performance and knowledge transfer, conduct experiments to visualize skill development with and without feedback, and investigate models for understanding how humans incorporate feedback into their decision-making processes. This research provides insights into the role of feedback in shaping human decisions.

There are three major contributions to this work.

(i). Exploring Evaluative Feedback Strategies: We investigate the impact of different evaluative feedback strategies on the performance of individuals learning to solve ToH, a widely studied sequential decision-making task. Furthermore, we explore how individuals trained with different feedback strategies transfer their skills to a more challenging task.
(ii). Understanding Reward Structures Induced by Evaluative Feedback: Treating humans as noisy optimal agents, we study how various evaluative feedback strategies affect their reward functions. Our research highlights the influence of different forms of evaluative feedback on the implicit reward structure that explains human decisions.
(iii). Developing Computational Models for Human Decision-Making: We create a set of candidate computational models that may explain how humans integrate evaluative feedback into their sequential decision-making processes. Our goal is to identify the model that best explains human decision-making under evaluative feedback conditions.

The rest of the manuscript is structured as follows. Sec. 2 presents background and problem formulation, and includes a discussion of the ToH structure, the application of maximum entropy IRL for learning human rewards, and the development of computational models aimed at integrating evaluative feedback into human decision-making processes. In Sec. 3, we provide details of the ToH experiments, conducted through the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) platform, alongside the discussion of the various evaluative feedback strategies employed during these experiments. We discuss and analyze the experiment results in Section 4 and finally conclude in Sec 5.

2 Background and problem formulation

We investigate the influence of evaluative feedback on human performance in a sequential decision-making task through experimental evaluations and computational modeling. To this end, we conducted experiments, where the participants were asked to solve the ToH puzzle. ToH is a puzzle in which disks with a priority order are placed on three pegs. The priority order determines which disk can be placed on top of another disk and each instance of admissible disk placement is referred to as a configuration. Thus, for a four-disk and a five-disk ToH, there are 3 4 = 81 and 3 5 = 243 possible configurations, respectively. The goal is to move one disk at a time and reach the desired configuration while maintaining the priority order at each time.

Consider the ToH puzzle with n disks, where the disks are numbered {0, 1, …, n − 1} in ascending order of size, and the three pegs are numbered {0, 1, 2} from left to right. The state of the n -disk ToH can be represented as S n = ( s 0 s 1 … s n −1 ), where s i ∈ {0, 1, 2} denotes the peg on which disk i is placed, for 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. Each state in an n -disk ToH has either two or three possible state transitions as can be seen by the state space of a 4-disk ToH shown in Fig 1 .

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

Each state corresponds to a unique configuration of the disks on three pegs and edges encode allowed transitions between states. The task is to reach the configuration associated with a randomly selected target state (for example 2201 in this figure). Warmer colors are associated with the higher value function (see Sec. 2.1 for discussion).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g001

2.1 Evaluative feedback

Using the reward function in ( 5 ) results in an optimal value function that is proportional to the length of the shortest path for each state to the target state. The obtained optimal value function is utilized to provide evaluative feedback to the human player based on the change in the value at states before and after the move. We deploy several feedback mechanisms as detailed in Section 3.1 and systematically explore how human decision-making is influenced by different feedback mechanisms.

Remark 1 The value function for each state in the ToH problem is proportional to the shortest path length to the target state, allowing for the application of simpler graph-search algorithms rather than RL. However, it’s crucial to recognize that this characteristic is unique to ToH’s finite and structured state space, governed by a recursive pattern, and does not apply to all sequential decision-making problems. In complex sequential decision-making problems like chess, characterized by larger or continuous state and action spaces, simpler algorithms might not be available, necessitating the use of advanced AI techniques like RL or deep neural networks to obtain the optimal policy. However, our framework is broadly applicable and can be generalized to other complex sequential decision-making tasks .

The state space of the ToH problem exhibits a recursive structure. Specifically, the state space of a ToH puzzle with n disks can be effectively illustrated using three interlocking triangles. Each of these triangles symbolizes the state space of a ToH puzzle with n − 1 disks. To illustrate this concept, let’s examine the state space of a 4-disk ToH in Fig 2 , which is highlighted in red. In the same figure, the blue and green squares are employed to represent the state spaces of 3-disk and 2-disk ToH puzzles, respectively. Hence, the state space for the ToH with n − 1 disks can be simply achieved by removing the last digit from each state in the upper triangle of the n -disk ToH. This digit corresponds to the position of the largest disk.

Each state corresponds to a unique configuration of the disks on three pegs and edges encode allowed transitions between states. The state space can be visualized as comprising three triangular structures. The states that connect different triangular structures are critical states to transition between triangles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g002

As illustrated in Fig 2 , the state space of the 4-disk ToH puzzle can be decomposed into three triangles labeled as T 1 , T 2 , and T 3 . Throughout the remainder of the manuscript, we will consistently refer to the regions of the state space as follows: the top triangle will be denoted as T 1 , the lower left triangle as T 2 , and the lower right triangle as T 3 . These triangles are interconnected at their vertices through single edges. These vertex states are critical states, transitioning from one triangle to another necessitates passing through these states. For instance, starting from an initial state in T 1 , the optimal path to reach a desired state in T 2 or T 3 must involve the state transitions 1110 → 1112 and 2220 → 2221, respectively. Indeed, to master the art of solving the ToH puzzle effectively, one must grasp its inherent recursive structure. Success in solving the puzzle relies on systematically working towards reaching the crucial critical states within the state space.

2.2 Human rewards using maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning

In the context of human participants solving the ToH puzzle, we can perceive them as noisy optimal agents striving to optimize an implicit reward function. Utilizing their demonstrations, we can leverage Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) techniques [ 31 , 32 ] to deduce a reward function. This reward function is designed to align the optimal policy with the observed human demonstrations.

The maximum entropy IRL [ 33 , 34 ] assumes human demonstrations are not perfect and allows us to learn from sub-optimal demonstrations by incorporating a probabilistic model that captures the variability in human behavior. Maximum entropy IRL has gained significant traction in the literature as a means to effectively learn from human demonstrations [ 35 ].

Interested readers are referred to [ 35 ] for detailed derivations.

We employ maximum entropy IRL to infer the reward functions associated with human behavior. Detailed results are presented in Section 4.2.

2.3 Modeling human sequential decision-making under feedback

A central and challenging aspect of designing efficient tutoring systems lies in understanding the impact of evaluative feedback from AI on human decision-making. Precisely, the question of how humans incorporate feedback into their decision-making processes is of paramount importance. In modeling this process, a foundational challenge is understanding how they interpret the feedback, including whether it’s seen as an immediate reward or an evaluation of long-term impacts. Further, it’s important to explore if feedback relates only to the current action or spans the sequence of actions. Additionally, understanding if evaluative feedback affects the assessment of value functions over time or momentarily influences action choices is vital. To tackle these questions, we develop candidate models that embody different mechanisms for incorporating feedback into human decision-making processes. Our models are inspired by the Training an Agent Manually via Evaluative Reinforcement (TAMER) framework [ 36 – 39 ] developed to incorporate human feedback into the policy of an artificial RL agent.

Model 1—Ignore feedback: This baseline model operates under the assumption that evaluative feedback isn’t directly integrated into human decision-making processes. Instead, individuals are postulated to focus on maximizing the long-term value derived from their personal reward functions. In this framework, evaluative feedback plays an indirect role by shaping and refining these reward functions. This is the default model studied in Sec. 2.2. The model encompasses | f | learned parameters.

We investigate these models in Sec 4.3 to understand how humans incorporate evaluative feedback in their decision-making.

3 Human experiments

In this section, we discuss the human experiments conducted using AMT.

3.1 Experiment design

The only difference among the experiments was the feedback provided during the 4-disk ToH training task. No feedback was provided during the 5-disk ToH transfer task in any of the experiments. In each experiment, participants were asked to try their best to get the highest scores. The feedback and scoring metrics used during the training task for the five experiments were:

Fig 3 shows the experimental interface utilized by participants during the training task of Experiment 5. As illustrated in Fig 3 , the participants had access to the numeric feedback, the number of moves taken, the current score S (total reward), the maximum available moves m allowed , the maximum possible reward, as well as information regarding intermediate and final goal configurations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g003

The interface for the training tasks in the other experiments is similar to Experiment 5 with the following key differences with respect to Fig 3 :

(i). Experiment 1: Participants do not receive any numeric feedback, like “Bad Move: -2 (in Fig 3 )”, and intermediate goal configurations during the training tasks.
(ii). Experiment 2: Participants receive numeric feedback during training tasks, but no intermediate goal configurations are provided.
(iii). Experiment 3: Participants were given access to a button labeled “Get Feedback” during the training tasks. Numeric feedback is only provided upon user request by pressing the designated button.
(iv). Experiment 4: Participants receive intermediate goal configurations during training tasks, but no numeric feedback is provided.

3.2 Methods

After receiving the IRB consent (MSU IRB #8421) from Michigan State University’s IRB office, we recruited 238 participants using AMT for the study. Inclusion criteria were established as having completed a minimum of 500 prior studies and maintaining a 98% approval rate on the platform. Participants were compensated with a base payment of $6 and had the opportunity to earn additional performance-based bonuses ranging from $0 − $4. Of the recruited participants, 78 participants were excluded due to self-reported prior experience with the ToH task.

The recruitment of participants took place from July 3, 2023, to July 10, 2023. Before engaging in the experiment, each participant was required to give written informed consent online, which was then securely documented alongside their experimental data. Participation was restricted to individuals who were 18 years of age or older.

4 Results and discussion

In this section, we discuss the results of the experiments conducted on AMT.

4.1 Performance under evaluative feedback

First, we collect the data of 20 participants each for the 5 set of experiments detailed in Section 3.1.

In Fig 4a , we present box plots illustrating the percentage scores achieved in the training tasks (4-disk ToH). Notably, participants who underwent training with evaluative feedback in Experiment 2 (numeric feedback) and Experiment 5 (sub-goal with numeric feedback) exhibited significantly improved performance during these training tasks compared to participants in Experiment 1 (no feedback), who received no evaluative feedback.

Within each box plot, the median is represented by the red horizontal line, while the lower and upper edges of the box signify the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. Whiskers extend to encompass the most extreme data points that are not classified as outliers, and individual outliers are plotted using the symbol ‘+’.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g004

In Experiment 3 (optional feedback), participants seldom requested feedback to avoid the feedback penalty, resulting in performance levels akin to those observed in Experiment 1. Experiment 4 (sub-goal) introduced a unique approach, where participants were exclusively exposed to sub-goal configuration (1110 or 2220) crucial for reaching the desired target state. In the absence of evaluative feedback, this method resembled the conditions of Experiment 1, where the sub-goal can be effectively thought as a target state until the sub-goal state is reached. We hypothesize that supplying solely sub-goal configurations without evaluative feedback may induce confusion, as participants may now consider two target states simultaneously—the sub-goal and the target state. Consequently, participants in Experiment 4 exhibited a marginal decrease in performance compared to those in Experiment 1.

In Fig 4b , we present box plots illustrating the percentage scores achieved in the transfer tasks involving the 5-disk ToH. It’s important to note that solving the 5-disk ToH, with its 243 states, presents a significantly greater challenge compared to the training task, which involved the 4-disk ToH with 81 states. Furthermore, participants had no prior experience with the 5-disk ToH and relied solely on their training with the 4-disk ToH. Consequently, the transfer tasks yielded relatively lower scores, with many trials failing to solve the puzzle within the allotted number of moves, which can make it challenging to interpret the box plots in Fig 4b .

To focus on successful outcomes, we filtered for positive percentage scores in each experiment, representing the trials where participants successfully solved the ToH puzzle. Table 1 provides an overview of the percentage of successful trials for each experiment, both in the training and transfer tasks. Notably, Experiment 2 and Experiment 5 demonstrated a substantial improvement in successful trials, showing increases of 33.5% and 36%, respectively, compared to Experiment 1 in the training tasks. In the transfer tasks, Experiments 2 and 5 also showed notable improvements, with success rates increasing by 13% and 26%, respectively, compared to Experiment 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.t001

To assess the statistical significance of these findings, we conducted a two-sample t -test comparing the results of Experiments 2 and 5 with the data from Experiment 1. Remarkably, the p values for Experiment 2 (in comparison to Experiment 1) and Experiment 5 (relative to Experiment 1) are 1.59 × 10 −12 and 1.71 × 10 −17 , respectively, in the training tasks, indicating highly significant differences. In the transfer tasks, the p values are 3.9 × 10 −2 and 7.17 × 10 −4 for Experiments 2 and 5 compared to Experiment 1, respectively. Consistent with the commonly accepted significance level of 0.05, a p value below this threshold leads us to reject the null hypothesis, indicating that the data from the two experiments do not arise from the same distribution at a 5% significance level. These results underscore the substantial impact of evaluative feedback on performance, both in the training and transfer tasks.

Fig 5a and 5b display box plots representing successful trials after filtering for positive scores. Notably, the medians of these box plots closely align with each other, suggesting that participants’ performances in the experiments can be effectively compared solely through the percentage of successful trials. Once participants have successfully learned to solve the ToH puzzle, their scores exhibit relatively little variation across experiments during successful trials. This observation highlights the stability and consistency of participants’ performance once they have mastered the task.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g005

Recall that each participant completed 10 trials of training and 5 trials of transfer tasks. In Fig 6a and 6b , bar plots represent the mean percentage scores for different trials in the training and transfer tasks, respectively. It’s evident that participants who received no feedback exhibited relatively low scores compared to those who received either numeric feedback or sub-goals with numeric feedback. Furthermore, while there is no consistent improvement over the trials for participants who did not receive feedback, participants who received evaluative feedback demonstrated performance enhancement with increasing scores across trials. Similar trends are observable in the transfer tasks, indicating that participants who received evaluative feedback found it easier to transfer their skills to related tasks and showed improvement across trials.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g006

The results in Table 1 underscore significant improvements in human decision-making attributed to evaluative feedback during training tasks, along with effective skill transfer to related tasks. We employ maximum entropy IRL [ 34 ] to investigate the pivotal role of evaluative feedback in shaping human decision-making, as detailed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. To enable this analysis, we conducted additional data collection sessions with 20 participants each, encompassing experiments devoid of feedback (Experiment 1) and those involving evaluative feedback (Experiments 2 and 5).

4.2 Human rewards under evaluative feedback

In this section, we treat humans solving the ToH puzzle as noisy optimal agents striving for optimal play with some implicit reward structure. We examine participants from three sets of experiments: (a) No feedback (Experiment 1), (b) Numeric feedback (Experiment 2), and (c) Sub-goal with numeric feedback (Experiment 5). To gain insights into human learning under these varying feedback conditions, we employ maximum entropy IRL analysis to uncover the underlying human reward structures. Visualizing these human rewards can offer valuable insights into the learning process with and without evaluative feedback.

Fig 7a and 7b display the learned IRL rewards in the training tasks for all states. While IRL typically assumes expert demonstrations, it’s important to note that participants may still be learning the task during the initial trials. Since the performance does not vary significantly in the latter half of the trials (see Fig 6a ), we assume that the human rewards are relatively stationary from trials 6 to 10 and, therefore, exclusively utilize these trials for our IRL analysis. From these latter trajectories, we derive IRL rewards, considering both (a) all available trajectories and (b) only the successful ones, where success is defined by reaching the target state.

IRL plots displaying learned human rewards in the training tasks for all states, using trajectory datasets (from trials 6-10 for each participant) from each experiment that encompass (a) all available trajectories and (b) only successful trajectories, where success is defined by reaching the target state. The red color represents high rewards close to 1 and dark blue represents close to 0 reward.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g007

Each of these plots is organized into a grid with 2 rows and 3 columns. The top row represents trajectories with the target state in triangle T 2 , while the bottom row represents trajectories with the target state in triangle T 3 . The columns correspond to the three sets of experiments: no feedback, numerical feedback, and sub-goal with numerical feedback arranged from left to right.

In Fig 7a , it becomes apparent that participants’ rewards in the experiment with no feedback (first column) exhibit a distribution across all states, encompassing both T 2 and T 3 , despite the target state’s placement in T 2 for the first row and in T 3 for the second row. The occurrence of high rewards in T 3 (respectively T 2 ) when the target state resides in T 2 (respectively T 3 ) primarily stems from the unsuccessful attempts to solve the ToH puzzle in each experiment. Consequently, we observe that as participants’ performance improves across experiments from left to right, rewards increase within the triangle containing the target state while decreasing in the opposing triangle. Another noteworthy observation is the presence of high rewards at the critical states (vertices of the target triangle), which serve as pivotal entry points to the target triangle. These rewards become more pronounced as performance enhances from left to right.

Fig 7b depicts the learned IRL rewards derived exclusively from successful trajectories in each experiment. Due to the absence of failed trajectories in each experiment, the disparities in IRL rewards across experiments, from left to right, become less pronounced. In each experiment, states within the target triangle and critical states exhibit higher rewards compared to the opposing triangles. In Experiments 1 and 2, the elevated rewards along the edge in the opposite triangle, which is closer to the target triangle, suggest that participants in these experiments occasionally complete the puzzle by opting for suboptimal routes. In contrast, participants in Experiment 5 predominantly solve the puzzle utilizing the optimal trajectory.

Fig 8a and 8b present the learned IRL rewards for all states within the transfer tasks, utilizing trajectory datasets that encompass (a) all available trajectories and (b) only successful trajectories. It is important to note that the transfer tasks pose significant challenges, with none of the participants receiving any feedback. Consequently, the trajectories for the transfer tasks in each experiment comprise numerous failed trajectories.

IRL plots displaying learned human rewards in the transfer tasks for all states, using trajectory datasets from each experiment that encompass (a) all available trajectories and (b) only successful trajectories, where success is defined by reaching the target state. The red color represents high rewards close to 1 and dark blue represents close to 0 reward.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g008

However, a noticeable trend emerges: participants from Experiment 5, who were trained using sub-goals with numeric feedback, exhibit faster learning in solving the transfer tasks compared to participants from Experiments 1 and 2, who received no feedback and only numerical feedback, respectively. This is evident from the higher rewards within the target triangle and lower rewards in the opposite triangle for Experiment 5. When considering only successful trajectories to derive the IRL rewards in Fig 8b , the differences across experiments become less pronounced due to the exclusion of failed trajectories in all experiments.

The results presented in Figs 7 and 8 offer valuable insights into how humans acquire puzzle-solving skills under various evaluative feedback strategies. However, it’s worth noting that the learned rewards appear less sparse due to the predefined features, which permit non-zero rewards in all states. Consequently, while these learned IRL rewards for all states offer insights into critical states, they can complicate the comparison between experiments. Furthermore, most of the RL rewards are often sparse. To this end, we modify the predefined features to encourage sparser rewards, allowing non-zero rewards in only 8 states for both the training and transfer tasks. These 8 states were thoughtfully selected as the vertices of the smaller triangles within the state space. In Fig 2 , these states correspond to 2200, 1100, 1110, 2220, 0012, 2212, 1121, 0021.

Fig 9a and 9b illustrate the learned IRL rewards for a specific subset of 8 states during the training tasks. These rewards are derived from trajectory datasets obtained from the latter half of the trials (trials 6 to 10) for each participant. We consider two scenarios: (a) using all available trajectories and (b) using only the trajectories that resulted in successful task completion. It is evident that participants from Experiment 5 demonstrate non-zero rewards exclusively within the target triangle and the corresponding critical states. As we progress from left to right, the non-zero rewards in the opposite triangle diminish due to fewer instances of failure. These differences become less pronounced when we solely consider successful trajectories in Fig 9b .

IRL plots displaying learned human rewards in the training tasks for a subset of 8 states, using trajectory datasets (from trials 6-10 for each participant) from each experiment that encompass (a) all available trajectories and (b) only successful trajectories, where success is defined by reaching the target state. The red color represents high rewards close to 1 and dark blue represents close to 0 reward.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g009

Fig 10a and 10b depict the learned IRL rewards for a selected subset of 8 states within the transfer tasks, using trajectory datasets that encompass (a) all available trajectories and (b) only successful trajectories. While the distinctions are somewhat less pronounced due to the presence of numerous failure attempts in all experiments, the lower rewards in the opposite triangle indicate swifter learning when participants are trained with feedback, in contrast to participants who receive no feedback. These differences become less noticeable when we exclusively consider successful trajectories in Fig 10b , effectively eliminating most of the non-zero rewards in the opposite triangle.

IRL plots displaying learned human rewards in the transfer tasks for a subset of 8 states, using trajectory datasets from each experiment that encompass (a) all available trajectories and (b) only successful trajectories, where success is defined by reaching the target state. The red color represents high rewards close to 1 and dark blue represents close to 0 reward.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.g010

The results of the max entropy IRL analysis underscore the significance of critical states and demonstrate how human learning in sequential decision-making tasks can be organized more effectively when evaluative feedback is provided, in contrast to participants solely learning through exploration without any feedback. The results further indicate that the participants trained with evaluative feedback exhibit an ability to transfer their learning to newer, related, and more demanding tasks at a significantly accelerated pace compared to those who learn without feedback.

4.3 Modeling human decision-making under evaluative feedback

In Sec. 4.1 and 4.2, we have demonstrated the pivotal role of evaluative feedback in enhancing learning and performance within the context of the ToH puzzle. In this section, we delve into exploring models that aim to elucidate the mechanisms through which humans integrate evaluative feedback into their decision-making processes.

It is important to note that this numeric feedback is determined based on the change in state value before and after the state transition. Consequently, it is intrinsically tied to the target state, given that the value function is contingent upon the target state.

Since the target state is subject to randomization in triangles T 2 and T 3 , we further segment these triangles into three sub-triangles each. This subdivision allows us to categorize the experimental data into six distinct groups, based on the location of the target state within these six sub-triangles. Within each group, we select the top vertex of the sub-triangle as the designated target state and truncate the trajectories to the point at which they initially enter the target sub-triangle.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.t002

Table 3 presents the AIC and BIC values (normalized by the number of observations) for different models within each group when non-zero rewards are allowed for only a subset of 8 states. This setting represents a more realistic scenario with sparse rewards. Notably, in this context, Model 2 consistently emerges as the best fit according to both the AIC and BIC criteria. This suggests that humans tend to interpret evaluative feedback as a strong indicator of the long-term effectiveness of their strategic actions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303949.t003

Remark 3 Even though Model 2 stands out as the preferred model according to both AIC and BIC criteria, there is a small evidence of support for Model 4 as well (in case of non-sparse rewards). This suggests that there might be instances where some individuals do not primarily learn through interaction but instead focus on maximizing their evaluative feedback directly. Such individuals could potentially encounter challenges in transfer tasks where evaluative feedback is not available .

4.4 Broader implications of results

Human learning and the acquisition of problem-solving skills in sequential decision-making tasks have broad implications. They can assist in cognitive rehabilitation post-injuries or strokes, enhance mathematical reasoning and STEM skill development in children, and improve performance in sports. However, mastering these skills is often challenging due to the cognitive demands of continuous decision-making. Our work introduces a systematic approach to designing advanced AI-driven tutoring systems to foster human learning in sequential decision-making tasks. As shown in Section 4.1, fostering human learning with AI-generated feedback not only promotes skill development but also facilitates the transfer of learned skills to more complex tasks. Additionally, as evidenced in Section 4.2, learning through evaluative feedback creates a more structured and organized learning experience compared to learning without feedback. Hence, these AI-based tutoring systems can improve the problem-solving skills and cognitive capabilities of the individuals while improving their learning experience.

Our findings in Section 4.3 suggest that humans perceive feedback as an indicator of the long-term effectiveness of their strategic actions. This insight can be utilized to influence human decision-making through the appropriate design of IoT devices. Specifically, by crafting feedback strategies geared towards fostering long-term behavioral enhancements, we can effectively influence individuals’ long-term actions and decision-making processes.

5 Conclusions

In this work, we study the influence of AI-generated evaluative feedback on human decision-making, with a specific focus on sequential decision-making tasks exemplified by the Tower of Hanoi. Our study demonstrates that individuals who receive training with evaluative feedback not only experience significant improvements in their decision-making abilities but also excel in transferring these enhanced skills to similar tasks. Through an analysis utilizing the maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning framework, we show that human learning exhibits a more structured and organized implicit reward pattern when evaluative feedback is provided during the training process. This highlights the critical role played by AI-generated feedback in improving the cognitive and strategic abilities of individuals.

Furthermore, our investigation explores various models to better comprehend how humans integrate feedback into their decision-making processes. Our findings provide substantial evidence suggesting that individuals tend to interpret evaluative feedback as a valuable indicator of the long-term effectiveness of their strategic actions. This valuable insight can be leveraged to design intelligent IoT devices, capable of enriching human learning experiences and shaping human decision-making.

View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
3. P. Gupta and V. Srivastava, “Optimal fidelity selection for human-in-the-loop queues using semi-Markov decision processes,” American Control Conference , pp. 5266–5271, 2019.
5. P. Gupta, S. D. Bopardikar, and V. Srivastava, “Achieving efficient collaboration in decentralized heterogeneous teams using common-pool resource games,” 58th Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 6924–6929, IEEE, 2019.
6. B. M. McLaren, R. Kenneth, M. Schneider, A. Harrer, and L. Bollen, “Bootstrapping novice data: Semi-automated tutor authoring using student log files,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Analyzing Student-Tutor Interaction Logs to Improve Educational Outcomes , Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems , pp. 1–10, Aug. 2004.
8. M. C. Gombolay, R. Jensen, J. Stigile, S.-H. Son, and J. A. Shah, “Learning to tutor from expert demonstrators via apprenticeship scheduling,” The AAAI-17 Workshop on Human-Machine Collaborative Learning , pp. 664–669, 2017.
9. M. K. Rahman, S. Sanghvi, and N. El-Moughny, “Enhancing an automated Braille writing tutor,” International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pp. 2327–2333, 2009.
10. P. Gupta and V. Srivastava, “Optimal fidelity selection for improved performance in human-in-the-loop queues for underwater search,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06381 , 2023.
13. P. Gupta, “Optimal & Game Theoretic Feedback Design for Efficient Human Performance in Human-Supervised Autonomy,” PhD thesis, Michigan State University , 2023.
15. M. W. Lewis, R. Milson, and J. R. Anderson, “The teacher’s apprentice: Designing an intelligent authoring system for high school mathematics,” Artificial Intelligence and Instruction: Applications and Methods , pp. 269–301, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1987.
17. P. Gupta and V. Srivastava, “On robust and adaptive fidelity selection for human-in-the-loop queues,” European Control Conference , pp. 872–877, 2021.
18. D. Bertsekas, Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control , vol. 1. Athena Scientific, 2012.
19. M. L. Puterman, Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming . John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
20. P. Gupta and V. Srivastava, “Deterministic sequencing of exploration and exploitation for reinforcement learning,” 61st Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 2313–2318, IEEE, 2022.
28. R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning , Second Edition: An Introduction . MIT Press, Nov. 2018.
30. C. Szepesvári, Algorithms for Reinforcement Learning . Springer Nature, 2022.
31. A. Y. Ng and S. J. Russell, “Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning,” Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning , p. 663–670, 2000.
32. M. Lopes, F. Melo, and L. Montesano, “Active learning for reward estimation in inverse reinforcement learning,” Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , pp. 31–46, Springer, 2009.
35. B. D. Ziebart, “Modeling purposeful adaptive behavior with the principle of maximum causal entropy,” PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University , 2010.
36. W. B. Knox and P. Stone, “Interactively shaping agents via human reinforcement: The tamer framework,” International Conference on Knowledge Capture , pp. 9–16, 2009.
39. W. B. Knox and P. Stone, “Learning non-myopically from human-generated reward,” International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pp. 191–202, 2013.

Money blog: Manchester United staff 'given week to resign' in WFH crackdown

Manchester United staff have reportedly been given a week to decide whether to resign under Sir Jim Ratcliffe's plans to end working from home. Read this and the rest of today's consumer and personal finance news in the Money blog below, and leave your thoughts in the comments box.

Wednesday 29 May 2024 17:00, UK

Get your holiday money now! Pound hits nearly two-year high against euro
Popular broadband provider hiking monthly payments from July
Manchester United staff reportedly given week to resign in Sir Jim Ratcliffe's WFH crackdown
Spotify launches cheaper deals - but there's a catch
UK has highest diesel prices in Europe

Essential reads

Head chef at UK's number one gastropub shares favourite cheap pasta recipe
Women in Business : 'A truck unloaded a £600 car that her son bought on eBay thinking it was a toy' - the schoolgate stories that led to GoHenry
Money Problem : 'My mortgage lender is ending my two-year fix and I haven't been in the house for two years - can they do this?'
Best of the Money blog - an archive

Ask a question or make a comment

Whoever wins the general election, one potential headache for the new administration will be Thames Water.

The current government has already drawn up contingency plans, known as Project Timber, for the possible collapse of a company currently saddled with debt of £15.4bn.

The scenario also features strongly on a dossier of potential crises compiled by Sue Gray, Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff, that an incoming Labour government would face.

Talk of a potential collapse has moved up the agenda because Thames Water's owners, which include the Canadian pensions giant Omers, the Universities Superannuation Scheme, a unit of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and the China Investment Corporation, have declined to inject more equity into the business. They had previously offered to inject a further £3.25bn, on top of £500m last year, were Ofwat, the regulator, to support the company's plans.

But Ofwat is refusing to allow Thames to raise its levels of investment and customer bills to the extent that the company is proposing .

Thames had asked Ofwat to approve an £18.7bn investment which would have entailed a 44% average increase in customer bills over the next regulatory period due to run from 2025-30. It tweaked this submission in April to raise investment to £19.8bn during the period with no extra increase in bills.

Ofwat was due to publish its "final deliberation" on investment plans and customer bills for the entire water industry, including Thames, on 12 June but has moved it back to 11 July due to the general election.

The Guardian reported earlier this week that Ofwat is set to refuse the requests of most water companies, including Thames, with some operators being allowed to raise bills by as little as half of what they had asked for.

Such an approach is consistent with Ofwat's historic approach of keeping water bills low as its main priority rather than, for example, permitting higher investment to tackle sewage spills.

However, there are signs that Ofwat may be prepared to compromise, at least to an extent.

The Financial Times reports today that the regulator is drawing up plans for a special "recovery regime" for Thames and other financially stressed UK water companies in a bid to avoid nationalisation.

It suggests that companies with "recovery regime" status could receive fewer or no regulatory penalties to encourage them to invest in infrastructure improvements instead, as well as being given more "realistic" targets for reducing sewage and water leaks and outages.

The regulator finds itself with a dilemma. Ofwat does not want Thames to collapse, not least because such an event would intensify criticism that the regulator allowed Thames's previous owners – most notably the Australian investment bank Macquarie – to load the company with debt while extracting enormous dividends (the current investors have received no dividends since 2017).

Ofwat's ministerial overlords – of both parties – will also be aware that an administration of Thames would deter the very international investors the UK desperately needs to attract to pay for infrastructure improvements.

On the other hand, though, Ofwat does not want to face accusations that it is being unduly lenient on a company that has been badly behaved in the past.

Now, it is fair to say that Ofwat is offering an olive branch here. Only two weeks ago, it said it was "minded" to punish Thames for breaching licence conditions over a £37.5m dividend paid to shareholders in October last year (Thames points out the payment was made to Kemble Water, its parent holding company, and was necessary to maintain the latter's solvency). That could result in another fine worth tens of millions of pounds.

The big question is whether this compromise will be enough to shore up Thames's financial situation. Ofwat has fined Thames £175m during the last three years which, while being a large sum, is a relatively trifling amount set against Thames's debts.

So it probably would not be enough, of itself, to persuade Thames's owner to pump more equity into the business. Omers, the biggest single shareholder in Thames, has already written down the entire value of its 31.7% stake in the company to nothing. USS, which has more than half a million scheme members in British universities and which owns nearly 20% of Thames, has written down the value of its shareholding from £956m at the end of 2022 to just £364.4m as at the end of last year.

What today's news reveals is that there is a compromise to be reached here. The extra month before Ofwat is due to publish its draft deliberation has bought both sides a little more time.

But it feels as if, with Ofwat in no mood to back down with Thames over its proposed increase in investment and customer bills, the latter's shareholders have run out of patience.

A "special administration" of Thames – something neither Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir Starmer would want to see – still feels like the way to be betting.

NOW Broadband is raising prices by an average of £3 a month from 5 July.

The company, owned by Sky, didn't raise prices in line with inflation in April - making it somewhat of an outlier.

But the summer raise will add an average of £36 a year to customer bills.

However, the company offers a no-penalty exit option.

Sabrina Hoque, telecoms expert at Uswitch.com, said: "Another mid-contract price increase unfortunately means bigger bills for already cash-strapped consumers.

"However, it is encouraging that NOW Broadband customers have the option to leave penalty free if they don't want to accept this change."

By Sarah Taaffe-Maguire , business reporter

The pound reached a 19-month high against the euro this morning as £1 equalled €1.1784.

Not since late August 2022 was sterling so strong against the currency of Eurozone states.

So if you're going on holidays to somewhere using the euro, now would be a good time to exchange pounds as you'll be getting more for your money than you would have.

Rates have come down slightly this afternoon - though are still high at €1.1746.

The pound buying more euro will mean it's cheaper for UK importers to buy goods - so some prices could come down.

It's happening because the interest rate-setters at the European Central Bank (ECB) look set to bring rates down at their meeting next week.

Manchester United staff have reportedly been given a week to decide whether to resign under Sir Jim Ratcliffe's plans to end working from home.

The club's non-football staff were invited to take redundancy by next Wednesday in an email sent on Tuesday, The Daily Telegraph reports .

Sir Jim has taken over the day-to-day running of the club and is making it compulsory for staff to work from their offices in Manchester or London from 1 June, the paper says.

Staff who do not wish to do so can quit and are being offered early payment of an annual bonus, it added.

A United spokesman told The Daily Telegraph the move "isn't a voluntary redundancy programme".

They added: "The club recognises that not everyone wants to work from the office full-time so has provided options for staff who don't wish to return to the office to step away now."

Sky News has contacted Manchester United for comment.

Junior doctors in England are set to strike for five days starting next month - part of a long-running dispute over pay.

The strike is set to run from 7am on 27 June to 2 July.

It means the dispute clash with the general election campaign, with polling day on 4 July.

Read the full story here ...

Parents see personal finance as a more important life skill than maths for schoolchildren, according to new research.

A poll by Nationwide suggests the majority (89%) of parents of children aged eight to 13 think finance education would help their kids understand the value of money.

The survey of 2,000 UK adults found that personal finance even ranked above maths, digital skills and cooking as vital skills for children - coming second only to literacy.

More than eight in 10 parents (84%) said their child hadn't had any finance education at school, despite the vast majority saying it was important for children to understand money.

The top subjects parents value at school are:

Literacy (66%)
Personal finance (59%)
Maths (51%)
Cooking (41%)
Digital skills (26%)

Personal finance was deemed the most important subject for children and young people among parents polled in Brighton, Belfast and Newcastle.

Amanda Beech, director of retail services at Nationwide, said financial education can "help young people get to grips with the world of money".

By Daniel Binns, business reporter

One of the big gainers on the stock market this morning is International Distributions Services, the owner of Royal Mail.

Shares in the company are up more than 3% on the FTSE 250 index after the company's board announced it had agreed to a takeover by "Czech Sphinx" Daniel Kretinsky.

IMAGES

Master Your Problem Solving and Decision Making Skills
5 step problem solving method
Problem-Solving Strategies: Definition and 5 Techniques to Try
Problem-solving and Decision-making
7 Steps to Improve Your Problem Solving Skills
The problem-solving process chart

VIDEO

Teaching Methods
Defining the Problem
Problem Solving Method
M Method Operation Research Lecture No 8
Problem solving examples in Decision Theory methods AI week 10 Part 1
5 Why's Problem-Solving Technique 💡

COMMENTS

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems
Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ) #action #decision making #problem solving #issue analysis #innovation #design #remote-friendly . ... 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. ...
Decision-Making and Problem-Solving: What's the Difference?
Decision-making is the process of choosing a solution based on your judgment, situation, facts, knowledge or a combination of available data. The goal is to avoid potential difficulties. Identifying opportunity is an important part of the decision-making process. Making decisions is often a part of problem-solving.
Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
The relationship between decision-making and problem-solving is complex. Decision-making is perhaps best thought of as a key part of problem-solving: one part of the overall process. Our approach at Skills You Need is to set out a framework to help guide you through the decision-making process. You won't always need to use the whole framework ...
Problem-Solving Strategies: Definition and 5 Techniques to Try
In insight problem-solving, the cognitive processes that help you solve a problem happen outside your conscious awareness. 4. Working backward. Working backward is a problem-solving approach often ...
Problem-Solving Strategies and Obstacles
Several mental processes are at work during problem-solving. Among them are: Perceptually recognizing the problem. Representing the problem in memory. Considering relevant information that applies to the problem. Identifying different aspects of the problem. Labeling and describing the problem.
The Psychology of Decision-Making Strategies
The decision-making process can be both simple (such as randomly picking out of our available options) or complex (such as systematically rating different aspects of the existing choices). The strategy we use depends on various factors, including how much time we have to make the decision, the overall complexity of the decision, and the amount ...
What is Problem Solving? Steps, Process & Techniques
Finding a suitable solution for issues can be accomplished by following the basic four-step problem-solving process and methodology outlined below. Step. Characteristics. 1. Define the problem. Differentiate fact from opinion. Specify underlying causes. Consult each faction involved for information. State the problem specifically.
Effective Problem-Solving and Decision-Making
There are 4 modules in this course. Problem-solving and effective decision-making are essential skills in today's fast-paced and ever-changing workplace. Both require a systematic yet creative approach to address today's business concerns. This course will teach an overarching process of how to identify problems to generate potential ...
Problem Solving and Decision Making
Decision making is the process of selecting and choosing one action or behavior out of several alternatives. Like problem solving, decision making involves the coordination of memories and executive resources. Research on decision making has paid particular attention to the cognitive biases that account for suboptimal decisions and decisions ...
Problem-Solving and Decision-Making
Problem-solving is a more analytical process than decision-making. Problem-solving is more process-related, while decision-making is more contextual. Problem-solving is directed at a specific goal or discrete answer. Problem-solving and decision-making may have consequences that are not always predictable or sequential.
The Problem-Solving Process
Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue. The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything ...
What is Problem Solving? (Steps, Techniques, Examples)
The problem-solving process typically includes the following steps: Identify the issue: Recognize the problem that needs to be solved. Analyze the situation: Examine the issue in depth, gather all relevant information, and consider any limitations or constraints that may be present. Generate potential solutions: Brainstorm a list of possible ...
Decision making
decision making, process and logic through which individuals arrive at a decision. Different models of decision making lead to dramatically different analyses and predictions. Decision-making theories range from objective rational decision making, which assumes that individuals will make the same decisions given the same information and ...
Problem Solving And Decision Making: 10 Hacks That Managers Love
Here is a brief explanation of the difference between problem solving and decision making: Problem solving: Problem solving is identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems or issues. It involves specifying the root cause of a problem and finding solutions to overcome it. Problem solving requires critical thinking, creativity, and analytical ...
Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: What is Critical Thinking?
Definition. Simply put, critical thinking is the act of deliberately analyzing information so that you can make better judgements and decisions. It involves using things like logic, reasoning, and creativity, to draw conclusions and generally understand things better. This may sound like a pretty broad definition, and that's because critical ...
Six Thinking Hats®
De Bono - who died in 2021 - was also the inventor of "lateral thinking," a method of solving problems indirectly, often in creative and surprising ways. Similarly, Six Thinking Hats is a way to understand and explore different types of thinking. Six Thinking Hats for Decision Making
Problem solving techniques: Steps and methods
Evaluate the options. Select the best solution. Create an implementation plan. Communicate your solution. Let's look at each step in a little more detail. The first solution you come up with won't always be the best - taking the time to consider your options is an essential problem solving technique. 1.
Problem Solving
Decision making is a case of choosing between different alternatives. Decision making is required in response to the question: "Which computer shall I buy?" Problem solving is needed in response to the statement: "My computer won't work". Most problem solving methods follow a common pattern, beginning with a definition of the problem, moving on ...
Tips And Techniques For Problem-Solving And Decision-Making
There are two main approaches to problem-solving and decision-making: vertical thinking and horizontal thinking. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, so understanding the differences ...
What is the Decision-Making Process? Definition, Steps, Examples, and
Effective decision-making often requires critical thinking, problem-solving skills, creativity, and good judgment. What is the First Step of Decision Making Process. The first step of the decision-making process is the identification of the decision that needs to be made. This involves recognizing a situation that requires a choice or action.
14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups
Step 2: Analyze the Problem. During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group's relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the "what" related to the problem, this step focuses on the "why.". At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty.
PDF Chapter 9 Problem Solving and Decision Making
effectively, problem solving, which includes decision making, moves through all the steps described here equally, engaging the knowledge and skills of all team members. This chapter will first present theoretical frameworks for problem solving, then define the steps that comprise problem solving and decision making within them.
A Better Framework for Solving Tough Problems
Key episode topics include: strategy, decision making and problem solving, strategy execution, ... They also bear different costs of addressing the problem or solving it. You talked about the ...
Problem Solving And Decision Making
A heuristic is a rule of thumb, a strategy, or a mental shortcut that generally works for solving a problem (particularly decision-making problems). It is a practical method, one that is not a hundred per cent guaranteed to be optimal or even successful, but is sufficient for the immediate goal. Working backwards is a useful heuristic in which ...
Fostering human learning in sequential decision-making: Understanding
Cognitive rehabilitation, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) skill acquisition, and coaching games such as chess often require tutoring decision-making strategies. The advancement of AI-driven tutoring systems for facilitating human learning requires an understanding of the impact of evaluative feedback on human decision-making and skill development. To this end, we conduct ...
Money blog: Manchester United staff 'given week to resign' in WFH
Money Problem: 'My mortgage lender ... making it somewhat of an outlier. But the summer raise will add an average of £36 a year to customer bills. However, the company offers a no-penalty exit ...

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Recommended Articles

How do you identify problems?

Complete problem-solving methods

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Tips for more effective problem solving

Clearly define the problem

Don’t jump to conclusions

Try different approaches

Don’t take it personally

Get the right people in the room

Document everything

Bring a facilitator

Develop your problem-solving skills

Design a great agenda

1. Six Thinking Hats

2. Lightning Decision Jam

3. Problem Definition Process

4. The 5 Whys

5. World Cafe

6. Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

7. Design Sprint 2.0

8. Open space technology

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

10. The Creativity Dice

11. Fishbone Analysis

12. Problem Tree

13. SWOT Analysis

14. Agreement-Certainty Matrix

16. Speed Boat

17. The Journalistic Six

18. LEGO Challenge

19. What, So What, Now What?

20. Journalists

Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions

21. Mindspin

22. Improved Solutions

23. Four Step Sketch

24. 15% Solutions

25. How-Now-Wow Matrix

26. Impact and Effort Matrix

27. Dotmocracy

28. Check-in / Check-out

29. Doodling Together

30. Show and Tell

31. Constellations

32. Draw a Tree

How do I conclude a problem-solving process?

33. One Breath Feedback

34. Who What When Matrix

35. Response cards

Save time and effort discovering the right solutions

Over to you

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

Small and Large Decisions

Decision Making

Problem Solving

Guiding you through the key skills needed in life

Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Identifying the Problem

2. Defining the Problem

3. Forming a Strategy

4. Organizing Information

5. Allocating Resources

6. Monitoring Progress

7. Evaluating the Results

A Word From Verywell​

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

What is Problem Solving? (Steps, Techniques, Examples)

What Is Problem Solving?

Problem-Solving Steps

Defining the Problem

Generating Solutions

Evaluating and Selecting Solutions

Implementing and Monitoring the Solution

Problem-Solving Techniques

A Word From Verywell