35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Problem solving workshop

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators 
using SessionLab.

Recommended Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s get started! 

How do you identify problems?

How do you identify the right solution.

  • Tips for more effective problem-solving

Complete problem-solving methods

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

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Closing activities for a problem-solving process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joint the problem solving

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!

joint the problem solving

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! 

' src=

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

' src=

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

cycle of workshop planning steps

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

joint the problem solving

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

joint the problem solving

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

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Sign up for free

joint the problem solving

Collaborative Problem Solving: What It Is and How to Do It

What is collaborative problem solving, how to solve problems as a team, celebrating success as a team.

Problems arise. That's a well-known fact of life and business. When they do, it may seem more straightforward to take individual ownership of the problem and immediately run with trying to solve it. However, the most effective problem-solving solutions often come through collaborative problem solving.

As defined by Webster's Dictionary , the word collaborate is to work jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor. Therefore, collaborative problem solving (CPS) is essentially solving problems by working together as a team. While problems can and are solved individually, CPS often brings about the best resolution to a problem while also developing a team atmosphere and encouraging creative thinking.

Because collaborative problem solving involves multiple people and ideas, there are some techniques that can help you stay on track, engage efficiently, and communicate effectively during collaboration.

  • Set Expectations. From the very beginning, expectations for openness and respect must be established for CPS to be effective. Everyone participating should feel that their ideas will be heard and valued.
  • Provide Variety. Another way of providing variety can be by eliciting individuals outside the organization but affected by the problem. This may mean involving various levels of leadership from the ground floor to the top of the organization. It may be that you involve someone from bookkeeping in a marketing problem-solving session. A perspective from someone not involved in the day-to-day of the problem can often provide valuable insight.
  • Communicate Clearly.  If the problem is not well-defined, the solution can't be. By clearly defining the problem, the framework for collaborative problem solving is narrowed and more effective.
  • Expand the Possibilities.  Think beyond what is offered. Take a discarded idea and expand upon it. Turn it upside down and inside out. What is good about it? What needs improvement? Sometimes the best ideas are those that have been discarded rather than reworked.
  • Encourage Creativity.  Out-of-the-box thinking is one of the great benefits of collaborative problem-solving. This may mean that solutions are proposed that have no way of working, but a small nugget makes its way from that creative thought to evolution into the perfect solution.
  • Provide Positive Feedback. There are many reasons participants may hold back in a collaborative problem-solving meeting. Fear of performance evaluation, lack of confidence, lack of clarity, and hierarchy concerns are just a few of the reasons people may not initially participate in a meeting. Positive public feedback early on in the meeting will eliminate some of these concerns and create more participation and more possible solutions.
  • Consider Solutions. Once several possible ideas have been identified, discuss the advantages and drawbacks of each one until a consensus is made.
  • Assign Tasks.  A problem identified and a solution selected is not a problem solved. Once a solution is determined, assign tasks to work towards a resolution. A team that has been invested in the creation of the solution will be invested in its resolution. The best time to act is now.
  • Evaluate the Solution. Reconnect as a team once the solution is implemented and the problem is solved. What went well? What didn't? Why? Collaboration doesn't necessarily end when the problem is solved. The solution to the problem is often the next step towards a new collaboration.

The burden that is lifted when a problem is solved is enough victory for some. However, a team that plays together should celebrate together. It's not only collaboration that brings unity to a team. It's also the combined celebration of a unified victory—the moment you look around and realize the collectiveness of your success.

We can help

Check out MindManager to learn more about how you can ignite teamwork and innovation by providing a clearer perspective on the big picture with a suite of sharing options and collaborative tools.

Need to Download MindManager?

Try the full version of mindmanager free for 30 days.

  • 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
  • Verywell Mind Insights
  • 2023 Verywell Mind 25
  • Mental Health in the Classroom
  • Editorial Process
  • Meet Our Review Board
  • Crisis Support

Problem-Solving Strategies and Obstacles

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

joint the problem solving

Sean is a fact-checker and researcher with experience in sociology, field research, and data analytics.

joint the problem solving

JGI / Jamie Grill / Getty Images

  • Application
  • Improvement

From deciding what to eat for dinner to considering whether it's the right time to buy a house, problem-solving is a large part of our daily lives. Learn some of the problem-solving strategies that exist and how to use them in real life, along with ways to overcome obstacles that are making it harder to resolve the issues you face.

What Is Problem-Solving?

In cognitive psychology , the term 'problem-solving' refers to the mental process that people go through to discover, analyze, and solve problems.

A problem exists when there is a goal that we want to achieve but the process by which we will achieve it is not obvious to us. Put another way, there is something that we want to occur in our life, yet we are not immediately certain how to make it happen.

Maybe you want a better relationship with your spouse or another family member but you're not sure how to improve it. Or you want to start a business but are unsure what steps to take. Problem-solving helps you figure out how to achieve these desires.

The problem-solving process involves:

  • Discovery of the problem
  • Deciding to tackle the issue
  • Seeking to understand the problem more fully
  • Researching available options or solutions
  • Taking action to resolve the issue

Before problem-solving can occur, it is important to first understand the exact nature of the problem itself. If your understanding of the issue is faulty, your attempts to resolve it will also be incorrect or flawed.

Problem-Solving Mental Processes

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

Problem-Solving Strategies

There are many ways to go about solving a problem. Some of these strategies might be used on their own, or you may decide to employ multiple approaches when working to figure out and fix a problem.

An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that, by following certain "rules" produces a solution. Algorithms are commonly used in mathematics to solve division or multiplication problems. But they can be used in other fields as well.

In psychology, algorithms can be used to help identify individuals with a greater risk of mental health issues. For instance, research suggests that certain algorithms might help us recognize children with an elevated risk of suicide or self-harm.

One benefit of algorithms is that they guarantee an accurate answer. However, they aren't always the best approach to problem-solving, in part because detecting patterns can be incredibly time-consuming.

There are also concerns when machine learning is involved—also known as artificial intelligence (AI)—such as whether they can accurately predict human behaviors.

Heuristics are shortcut strategies that people can use to solve a problem at hand. These "rule of thumb" approaches allow you to simplify complex problems, reducing the total number of possible solutions to a more manageable set.

If you find yourself sitting in a traffic jam, for example, you may quickly consider other routes, taking one to get moving once again. When shopping for a new car, you might think back to a prior experience when negotiating got you a lower price, then employ the same tactics.

While heuristics may be helpful when facing smaller issues, major decisions shouldn't necessarily be made using a shortcut approach. Heuristics also don't guarantee an effective solution, such as when trying to drive around a traffic jam only to find yourself on an equally crowded route.

Trial and Error

A trial-and-error approach to problem-solving involves trying a number of potential solutions to a particular issue, then ruling out those that do not work. If you're not sure whether to buy a shirt in blue or green, for instance, you may try on each before deciding which one to purchase.

This can be a good strategy to use if you have a limited number of solutions available. But if there are many different choices available, narrowing down the possible options using another problem-solving technique can be helpful before attempting trial and error.

In some cases, the solution to a problem can appear as a sudden insight. You are facing an issue in a relationship or your career when, out of nowhere, the solution appears in your mind and you know exactly what to do.

Insight can occur when the problem in front of you is similar to an issue that you've dealt with in the past. Although, you may not recognize what is occurring since the underlying mental processes that lead to insight often happen outside of conscious awareness .

Research indicates that insight is most likely to occur during times when you are alone—such as when going on a walk by yourself, when you're in the shower, or when lying in bed after waking up.

How to Apply Problem-Solving Strategies in Real Life

If you're facing a problem, you can implement one or more of these strategies to find a potential solution. Here's how to use them in real life:

  • Create a flow chart . If you have time, you can take advantage of the algorithm approach to problem-solving by sitting down and making a flow chart of each potential solution, its consequences, and what happens next.
  • Recall your past experiences . When a problem needs to be solved fairly quickly, heuristics may be a better approach. Think back to when you faced a similar issue, then use your knowledge and experience to choose the best option possible.
  • Start trying potential solutions . If your options are limited, start trying them one by one to see which solution is best for achieving your desired goal. If a particular solution doesn't work, move on to the next.
  • Take some time alone . Since insight is often achieved when you're alone, carve out time to be by yourself for a while. The answer to your problem may come to you, seemingly out of the blue, if you spend some time away from others.

Obstacles to Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is not a flawless process as there are a number of obstacles that can interfere with our ability to solve a problem quickly and efficiently. These obstacles include:

  • Assumptions: When dealing with a problem, people can make assumptions about the constraints and obstacles that prevent certain solutions. Thus, they may not even try some potential options.
  • Functional fixedness : This term refers to the tendency to view problems only in their customary manner. Functional fixedness prevents people from fully seeing all of the different options that might be available to find a solution.
  • Irrelevant or misleading information: When trying to solve a problem, it's important to distinguish between information that is relevant to the issue and irrelevant data that can lead to faulty solutions. The more complex the problem, the easier it is to focus on misleading or irrelevant information.
  • Mental set: A mental set is a tendency to only use solutions that have worked in the past rather than looking for alternative ideas. A mental set can work as a heuristic, making it a useful problem-solving tool. However, mental sets can also lead to inflexibility, making it more difficult to find effective solutions.

How to Improve Your Problem-Solving Skills

In the end, if your goal is to become a better problem-solver, it's helpful to remember that this is a process. Thus, if you want to improve your problem-solving skills, following these steps can help lead you to your solution:

  • Recognize that a problem exists . If you are facing a problem, there are generally signs. For instance, if you have a mental illness , you may experience excessive fear or sadness, mood changes, and changes in sleeping or eating habits. Recognizing these signs can help you realize that an issue exists.
  • Decide to solve the problem . Make a conscious decision to solve the issue at hand. Commit to yourself that you will go through the steps necessary to find a solution.
  • Seek to fully understand the issue . Analyze the problem you face, looking at it from all sides. If your problem is relationship-related, for instance, ask yourself how the other person may be interpreting the issue. You might also consider how your actions might be contributing to the situation.
  • Research potential options . Using the problem-solving strategies mentioned, research potential solutions. Make a list of options, then consider each one individually. What are some pros and cons of taking the available routes? What would you need to do to make them happen?
  • Take action . Select the best solution possible and take action. Action is one of the steps required for change . So, go through the motions needed to resolve the issue.
  • Try another option, if needed . If the solution you chose didn't work, don't give up. Either go through the problem-solving process again or simply try another option.

You can find a way to solve your problems as long as you keep working toward this goal—even if the best solution is simply to let go because no other good solution exists.

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

Dunbar K. Problem solving . A Companion to Cognitive Science . 2017. doi:10.1002/9781405164535.ch20

Stewart SL, Celebre A, Hirdes JP, Poss JW. Risk of suicide and self-harm in kids: The development of an algorithm to identify high-risk individuals within the children's mental health system . Child Psychiat Human Develop . 2020;51:913-924. doi:10.1007/s10578-020-00968-9

Rosenbusch H, Soldner F, Evans AM, Zeelenberg M. Supervised machine learning methods in psychology: A practical introduction with annotated R code . Soc Personal Psychol Compass . 2021;15(2):e12579. doi:10.1111/spc3.12579

Mishra S. Decision-making under risk: Integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology . Personal Soc Psychol Rev . 2014;18(3):280-307. doi:10.1177/1088868314530517

Csikszentmihalyi M, Sawyer K. Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment . In: The Systems Model of Creativity . 2015:73-98. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_7

Chrysikou EG, Motyka K, Nigro C, Yang SI, Thompson-Schill SL. Functional fixedness in creative thinking tasks depends on stimulus modality .  Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts . 2016;10(4):425‐435. doi:10.1037/aca0000050

Huang F, Tang S, Hu Z. Unconditional perseveration of the short-term mental set in chunk decomposition .  Front Psychol . 2018;9:2568. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02568

National Alliance on Mental Illness. Warning signs and symptoms .

Mayer RE. Thinking, problem solving, cognition, 2nd ed .

Schooler JW, Ohlsson S, Brooks K. Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. J Experiment Psychol: General . 1993;122:166-183. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.2.166

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

joint the problem solving

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Joint problem-solving orientation, mutual value recognition, and performance in fluid teamwork environments.

Michaela Kerrissey

  • 1 Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States
  • 2 School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States

Introduction: Joint problem-solving orientation (JPS) has been identified as a factor that promotes performance in fluid teamwork, but research on this factor remains nascent. This study pushes the frontier of understanding about JPS in fluid teamwork environments by applying the concept to within-organization work and exploring its relationships with performance, mutual value recognition (MVR), and expertise variety (EV).

Methods: This is a longitudinal, survey-based field study within a large United States healthcare organization n = 26,319 (2019 response rate = 87%, 2021 response rate = 80%). The analytic sample represents 1,608 departmental units in both years (e.g., intensive care units and emergency departments). We focus on departmental units in distinct locations as the units within which fluid teamwork occurs in the hospital system setting. Within these units, we measure JPS in 2019 and MVR in 2021, and we capture EV by unit using a count of the number of disciplines present. For a performance measure, we draw on the industry-used measurement of perceived care quality and safety. We conduct moderated mediation analysis testing (1) the main effect of JPS on performance, (2) mediation through MVR, and (3) EV as a moderator.

Results: Our results affirm a moderated mediation model wherein JPS enhances performance, both directly and through MVR; EV serves as a moderator in the JPS-MVR relationship. JPS positively influences MVR, irrespective of whether EV is high or low. When JPS is lower, greater EV is associated with lower MVR, whereas amid high JPS, greater EV is associated with higher MVR, as compared to lower EV.

Discussion: Our findings lend further evidence to the value of JPS in fluid teamwork environments for enabling performance, and we document for the first time its relevance for within-organization work. Our results suggest that one vital pathway for JPS to improve performance is through enhancing recognition of the value that others offer, especially in environments where expertise variety is high.

Introduction

In today’s specialized and fast-paced world, organizations increasingly rely on fluid teamwork. Individuals often come together quickly and change frequently based on the needs of the organization or the nature of the task at hand ( Bushe and Chu, 2011 ; Li and van Knippenberg, 2021 ). This is common in industries from engineering to healthcare, where networks of diverse experts must be drawn upon to accomplish complex work in the moment ( Burke et al., 2004 ; Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009 ; Retelny et al., 2014 ). Teamwork in these settings can offer advantages of expertise pooling, knowledge integration, and shared accountability ( Cummings, 2004 ; Dahlin et al., 2005 ). Doing so fluidly may enable more efficient and adaptive use of expertise than stable team membership because individuals with distinct expertise can rapidly come and go as the need for their input arises or dissipates. This helps to address issues like urgency ( Klein et al., 2006 ), complexity ( Huckman et al., 2009 ), schedule shifts ( Valentine and Edmondson, 2015 ), and surprises ( Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011 ). However, fluid teamwork environments present challenges for organizational leaders who must establish conditions that enable effective teamwork, calling for new research to identify and understand the factors that are supportive ( Salas et al., 2018 ; Kerrissey et al., 2020 ).

Teams are groups of individuals who interact to pursue a common goal ( Salas et al., 2008a ). Richard Hackman described “real” teams as teams that have stable and bounded membership, such that it is clear who is on the team and membership does not shift dramatically over time ( Hackman, 2002 ). Research has since identified stable teams as being advantageous for performance, suggesting that stable teams’ members gain a familiarity over time that confers a better understanding of one another’s strengths, weaknesses, backgrounds, and habits, which can stimulate both cognitive and social benefits ( Muskat et al., 2022 ). For this reason, it is often exhorted that teams be designed to remain relatively stable in order to derive the benefits of familiarity for performance.

However, scholars over the past decade have noted that many dynamic work settings make stable and fixed team membership hard to achieve ( Edmondson, 2012 ; Tannenbaum et al., 2012 ; Mortensen and Haas, 2018 ; Li and van Knippenberg, 2021 ). Fluidity has been described as the presence of shifting team members, i.e., individuals moving on or off the team, though the term at times is also used to refer to ad hoc or short-duration teams ( Huckman and Staats, 2011 ; Dibble and Gibson, 2018 ). For clarity, we use fluidity to refer to membership change and “short duration” to refer to brief team lifespans (though note that, in real world settings, fluidity and short duration often overlap considerably). At the extreme of fluidity in teamwork, individuals may team up together in pursuit of shared goals on the fly or with such a short duration or high degree of individual turnover that ongoing familiarity as a coherent unit becomes elusive—what has been called teaming ( Edmondson, 2012 ) or dynamic participation ( Mortensen and Haas, 2018 ).

Fluid teamwork can offer advantages in adaptiveness and efficiency because individuals are able to come and go as their contributions to a task or goal are needed, but it can also undermine familiarity and its potential benefits to teamwork. For example, it can limit the development of shared mental models and cohesion, which ordinarily help individuals to see joint work similarly and help them to depend upon and reciprocate with one another ( Bushe and Chu, 2011 ). The challenges of fluid teamwork are especially notable in the presence of varied expertise, as familiarity is important for bridging the knowledge differences that separate experts ( Kerrissey et al., 2021 ). In such circumstances, behaviors and orientations to collaboration may be especially valuable because they set expectations about whether and how to team up with others to share information, coordinate, and pursue overlapping goals, even when the structural conditions for ongoing, stable teamwork are not present ( Edmondson and Harvey, 2017 ). Amid calls for research on fluid teamwork for years ( Cronin et al., 2011 ; Wageman et al., 2012 ; Dibble and Gibson, 2018 ), there is a particular need for research that explores the contexts in which highly fluid teamwork transpires and that identifies factors that aid performance in the face of considerable barriers.

In this study, we explore the unit conditions that may enable fluid teamwork to thrive, focusing on units within a context known for highly fluid teamwork: health care delivery. Many have written about the challenges of fluid teamwork in health care ( Bushe and Chu, 2011 ), such as shifting task needs due to the emergent nature of many health conditions, the presence of multi-disciplinarity (and its increase with expansion of medical expertise and the addition of new allied health roles), patient-centered frameworks that build unique clinician and staff teams around each patient’s needs, and increasing policy emphasis on team-based care ( Andreatta, 2010 ; Bedwell et al., 2012 ; Kerrissey et al., 2023 ). We focus on hospital-based care across units, such as emergency departments, medical intensive care units, surgical intensive care units, and transplant units, because of the common occurrence of shifting sets of individuals teaming up in service of a specific patient during their stay at the hospital. For instance, one study found that the average patient sees 17.8 professionals during a hospitalization (with a range of 5–44), and these individuals come and go throughout the stay as needed and available ( Whitt et al., 2007 ).

Past research in such settings has detailed how fluid teamwork manifests. For example, teamwork shifts around patients in the emergency department with rotating work schedules as nurses and attending physicians clock in and out or specific consulting expertise is brought in for a unique need ( Valentine and Edmondson, 2015 ). Other research has described how intensive care units rely on shifting teamwork across core and peripheral members who may experience brief synchronous periods of work ( Mayo, 2022 ). Aligning with the perspective that health care teamwork often entails fluidity, we sought to examine organizational units (departments in distinct locations) to explore factors that managers and leaders may find useful in promoting effective teamwork in fluid settings and that would be measurable across a large number of work units in future research.

Specifically, we focus on joint problem-solving orientations (JPS)—defined as emphasizing problems as shared and viewing solutions as requiring co-production—as a factor that has been found to promote performance in fluid teamwork settings and for which empirical and theoretical development remains nascent ( Kerrissey et al., 2021 ). Connecting with traditional research that has illuminated the value of shared orientations in more stable teams ( Driskell and Salas, 1992 ; Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ), the concept of JPS is especially relevant for fluid teamwork because it captures both the perceived jointness of the problem faced and the willingness to resolve it together, even without the luxury of stable team membership or fully aligned goals. Initial research on JPS was conducted in unique fluid teamwork settings—cross-sector, cross-organizational teams, and, later, in a computer simulation about a shopping task ( Kerrissey et al., 2021 ). Other research on fluid teams has been conducted in unique contexts, such as crowdsourced software coding ( Retelny et al., 2014 ). However, much fluid teamwork is more mundane, occurring within the bounds of organizations day-to-day, from software development ( Huckman et al., 2009 ) to health care delivery ( Bedwell et al., 2012 ). In these settings, establishing mechanisms and conditions that enable fluid teamwork to yield performance is vital for overcoming challenges and improving performance. This is especially important for work that relies on experts, who are known to face challenges in moving beyond their individual expertise to fully collaborate ( Reyes and Salas, 2019 ). However, we know little about both the mechanisms through which JPS affects performance and the boundary conditions that shape its effectiveness within organizational units where fluid teamwork is common.

Drawing on multi-year field data from over 1,600 organizational units within a large, geographically-distributed healthcare organization, this paper makes two primary extensions. First, we apply JPS within work units in which fluid teamwork is common, examining its shared presence within organizational units and exploring its relationship with performance in this context. This perspective aligns with the conceptual claim that organizational environments affect teamwork ( Salas et al., 2018 ), alongside the practical reality that departments in hospitals are cogent entities that are used internally to structure work. This makes measurement of JPS within and across departments plausibly informative. Second, we test hypotheses about how JPS affects performance, proposing mutual value recognition (MVR) as a mediator and expertise variety (EV) as a moderator. We focus on MVR as describing the extent to which people recognize (i.e., respect, trust, and listen to) the value that others bring to collaboration. This may be vital for producing performance in fluid teamwork environments where diverse experts draw on distinct languages and norms ( Hall, 2005 ) and may face differences in near-term goals and commitments ( Bushe and Chu, 2011 ). In facilitating a shared focus on solving joint problems, JPS may allow individual experts to better and more rapidly recognize the value that others offer. Our specific hypotheses are detailed in the sections that follow.

We build out a set of hypotheses to propose a moderated mediation model ( Figure 1 ), beginning with a main effect of JPS on performance, followed by a set of hypotheses pertaining to MVR as a mediator of that relationship. We conclude with moderation by expertise variety, hypothesizing that more variety heightens the positive relationship between JPS and both MVR and performance.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 1 . Hypothesized research model.

Joint problem-solving orientation

Past research has found that joint problem-solving orientation (JPS) is associated with improved work quality in fluid cross-boundary teams ( Kerrissey et al., 2021 ). This has two interrelated aspects: problem-solving and jointness. For problem-solving, seeking help with problem-solving tasks is central to knowledge-intensive work because it enables employees to address and complete complex tasks, thereby directly enhancing performance ( Hargadon and Bechky, 2006 ). The focus not only on problems but also on solving them further emphasizes the value of capturing the willingness and tendency for collaborators to move beyond venting ( Rosen et al., 2021 ) and toward solutions.

The aspect of jointness, though related, is distinct, as individuals may seek help and advice for problem-solving, but that does not guarantee that they do so in a way that implies a shared sense of problem ownership among the asker and receiver of problem-solving assistance. The jointness aspect of JPS refers to this shared emphasis and understanding that problems are mutually faced and require solving together. Jointness is important because of a tendency toward separation among loosely affiliated people; for example, social categorization theory suggests that individuals tend to view others with shared goals, motivations, and priorities as the ingroup and to categorize those who do not as the outgroup ( Harrison and Klein, 2007 ). In related literature, establishment of collective orientation among team members, even in stable teams, has been identified as an important factor in team effectiveness ( Driskell and Salas, 1992 ; Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Hagemann and Kluge, 2017 ). For instance, research on computer-based simulations of complex teamwork tasks (e.g., extinguishing forest fires and protecting houses) found that, among a set of variables including trust and cohesion, only joint orientation of team members positively affected team performance ( Hagemann and Kluge, 2017 ). Other research on creative teams has found that teams that overcome asymmetries in psychological ownership of their ideas to generate collective ownership have more early successes ( Gray et al., 2020 ).

In line with Kerrissey et al. (2021) , we posit that a joint orientation toward problem-solving is particularly relevant for fluid, knowledge-intensive teamwork contexts when diverse experts come together rapidly to solve problems. Kerrissey and co-authors examined this phenomenon in the extreme context of cross-sector, cross-organization teams that form ad hoc to solve pressing societal problems. We adapt their logic here to hypothesize that the relationship holds even in more ordinary work contexts (i.e., organizational units in health care). Our first hypothesis thus seeks to replicate the finding that JPS is positively associated with performance, but in the context of organizational work units where fluid teamwork occurs.

H1: JPS is positively associated with performance.

Mutual value recognition as a mediator

Amid fluid teamwork, the need to swiftly establish a common understanding of what others offer becomes paramount ( Bushe and Chu, 2011 ), especially in the presence of expertise differences ( Reyes and Salas, 2019 ). Beyond a direct effect of JPS on performance through the concrete solving of organizational problems that would otherwise directly hinder performance, we hypothesize that the relationship of JPS to performance is also mediated through a greater recognition of the value that others in their environment offer. Extensive research shows that different expertise areas bring different values, perspectives and technical languages ( Carlile, 2004 ), including in health care ( Hall, 2005 ). Gaining familiarity with one another by working together over time can improve performance ( Huckman and Staats, 2011 ). However, in fluid expertise-driven work contexts where individuals fill roles in shifting sets based on their training (e.g., a nurse acting as a nurse across several teams, and being replaced by other nurses as needed), we posit that JPS enables people to better recognize the value in what other roles and expertise areas have to offer. In spurring problem and solution-focused collaborative work through shared recognition of problems as joint, JPS may help highly trained experts gain real-world experience with and respect for others’ work contributions.

H2: JPS is positively associated with MVR. H3: MVR relates positively to performance. H4: MVR mediates the relationship between JPS and performance.

EV as a moderator

Expertise variety (EV) refers to heterogeneity among members of an interdependent work group who have each accumulated domain specific-knowledge, encompassing variations in functional role or educational background and skill ( Ericsson and Smith, 1991 ). On the one hand, the presence of varied expertise offers the advantage of a more heterogeneous pool of task-relevant perspectives and informational resources to draw from, which serves to enhance team performance ( Van Knippenberg et al., 2004 ). On the other hand, the presence of differing training or functional backgrounds can create communication and cooperation barriers and heighten relational conflicts, damaging interpersonal relationships and negatively affecting performance ( Cronin and Weingart, 2007 ).

We hypothesize that EV in departments moderates the relationship of JPS with both MVR and performance. When there is high expertise variety within a department, we posit that the effect of JPS on performance and MVR is strengthened, as JPS can enable diverse experts to come together and mutually solve problems despite their differing backgrounds. When there is lower EV, we expect that JPS is still positively related to performance but less essentially so, as individuals with similar backgrounds may not need to rely on and value others to address problems collaboratively. Similarly, the benefit of JPS for performance that flows through MVR is likely especially important amid EV because the more experts present the more important it is likely to be that individuals value what others offer.

H5: JPS in the presence of greater EV is related to greater MVR (H5a) and greater performance (H5b). H6: There is a moderated mediation that explains the relationship between JPS and performance, with MVR mediating the JPS-performance relationship and EV moderating the JPS-MVR and JPS-performance relationships.

We collected data from a large, United States-based organization with over 20 hospitals, over 200 outpatient locations, and over 13 million patient encounters in 2022. It is commonly accepted that teamwork is central to most care delivery environments ( Rosenbaum, 2019 ) and that it is typically fluid ( Bedwell et al., 2012 ), in part because healthcare teams often engage varied expertise in response to patient needs ( Rosen et al., 2018 ). This makes a hospital-based healthcare organization an ideal setting for this study.

Sample and administration

The organizational survey was sent to 45,471 staff. We excluded individuals from our study who were in purely administrative departments to retain a focus on teamwork in patient-serving care, resulting in n = 26,319. The sample was composed of an array of expertise areas including patient-facing caregivers and their managers within the organization, which includes senior management, middle management, physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, licensed practice nurses, nursing assistants, and other clinical professionals such as speech, physical and occupational therapists, alongside some security, service and clerical personnel supporting patient-facing departments. The survey was administered to staff electronically in English at two time points (May 2019 response rate = 87%; May 2021 response rate = 80%). The staff respondents were attributed to 1,608 departmental units, which were defined as being within the same department and physical location (in this organization, a single department can cut across several locations). These departmental units were obtained from human resources files. Table 1 presents the sample characteristics (presented for 2019). The study sample had a predominantly female composition (77.25%) and an age distribution with a large proportion in the 30–49 years age group (48.62%). A slight majority had 1–10 years of tenure (52.38%). There was a range of expertise areas present, with Registered Nurse being the most frequent (23.85%).

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1 . Demographic statistics of the sample ( n = 26,319).

All measures were assessed using five-point Likert scales and converted to domain means using the mean of the composite items.

Joint problem solving

Through iterative input sessions with organizational staff, we modified the joint problem-solving orientation measure developed by Kerrissey et al. (2021) for relevance within a single organization (the original measure was framed to ask about teamwork across two organizations). The adapted measure retained the theoretical emphasis of problems being seen as shared and solutions being seen as requiring co-production, but the language was modified to reflect departments as the referent unit. It included three items: (1) we view addressing problems as a team effort in this department, (2) when a problem arises, we routinely involve whomever is needed to address it, regardless of their unit or role, and (3) we can rely on people in other departments to address problems with us when needed, ( α = 0.85). JPS was measured in 2019.

Mutual value recognition

We measured MVR using relevant items from a validated survey developed for use in care delivery environments to capture affective teamwork across roles, the Primary Care Team Dynamics instrument, which includes 29 items all measured on Likert agreement scales and that are allocated across seven conceptual domains, including conditions for team effectiveness, shared understanding, accountability processes, communication processes, acting and feeling like a team, and perceived team effectiveness ( Song et al., 2015 , 2017 ). For the purpose of our hypothesizing in this study, we focused on the teamwork items used to capture valuing, trusting, and respecting others in expertise-diverse healthcare environments, which in the instrument’s measurement scheme fell under the broader theme of “acting and feeling like a team” (this theme also included two other aspects, one pertaining to using team skills and another on communicating information, which were not related to our hypothesizing and thus not measured in this study). In line with our interest in this study on mutually recognizing the value that others can offer, we focused on the three items describing aspects of valuing others, namely, respecting other roles and expertise, trusting each other’s work contributions, and listening to each other. MVR is thus distinct from the adjacent concept of transactive memory systems (TMS), which describes the shared division of cognitive labor in encoding, storage, retrieval, and communication of information ( Hollingshead, 2001 ). MVR focuses not on the cognitive representation and assignment of information from different domains but rather on the recognition that the information from other domains is valuable (respectable, trustable, and worth listening to).

To measure this concept, we used the following items from Song et al. (2015) : (1) “People in this department show respect for each other’s roles and expertise,” (2) “People in this department trust each other’s work and contributions,” and (3) “Most of the time people in this department listen to the information that I communicate to them,” ( α  = 0.86). We made slight updates to the original items to reflect the department as the referent entity rather than “team.” We used these items as measured in 2021 to mitigate common method bias concerns with their measurement alongside JPS.

Outcome measure

We captured performance in the context of healthcare delivery by measuring staff-perceived care quality and safety, leveraging practical measures used widely within the industry to inform operations and managerial decision-making. Specifically, we used measures from a survey conducted by the health system we studied through a national vendor (Press Ganey), which implements validated employee experience surveys in healthcare. Press Ganey’s industry-oriented research has found that employee perceptions derived from these surveys are related to patient ratings of care as well as hospital financial performance ( Buhlman and Lee, 2019 ). We draw on three measures from their survey, as captured in 2021: (1) “[This organization] provides high-quality care and service,” (2) “[This organization] makes every effort to deliver safe, error-free care to patients,” and (3) “I would recommend [this organization] to family and friends who need care.” These items are conceptually related as markers of performance in healthcare (i.e., that care is both high quality and safe, alongside the general measure of perceived performance based on likelihood of recommending their services to others); they were also empirically related with a high Cronbach’s alpha ( α = 0.92). For parsimony in presenting our results, we thus operationalize performance as a mean across the three interrelated items; sensitivity analyses examining each item separately yielded similar results.

Aggregation of constructs

Because we are interested in the organizational conditions in which fluid teamwork transpires, our measurement is within the department as the local environment that exists within physically located departments, with common management and workers who team up in shifting but overlapping configurations day after day. This approach has been used in prior research on psychological constructs, such as in the study of team climates using psychological safety, which has often been conducted at the departmental level in healthcare e.g., (see Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006 ).

To justify this aggregation, we calculated within-team agreement parameters and intraclass correlations, and performed a one-way ANOVA for JPS, MVR, and team performance. All scales exhibited significant between-group variance ( F = 2.36, p < 0.01, F = 2.61; p < 0.01; and F = 3.28, p < 0.01, respectively). Intraclass correlations were: ICC 1 = 0.10 and ICC 2 = 0.57 for JPS; ICC 1 = 0.11 and ICC 2 = 0.62 for MVR; and ICC 1 = 0.11 and ICC 2 = 0.62 for performance. All scales showed moderate levels of agreement ( rwg  = 0.70 for JPS; rwg = 0.71 for MVR; and rwg = 0.82 for performance). The ICC and rwg values were consistent with those in team research and considered acceptable for justifying aggregation ( Chen and Bliese, 2002 ; LeBreton and Senter, 2008 ). The typical values for ICC (1) are 0.01–0.45 and for ICC (2) are 0.45–0.90; values of rwg of 0.51–0.70 show moderate agreement, values of 0.71–0.90 show strong agreement, and 0.91–1.00 show very strong agreement ( LeBreton and Senter, 2008 ).

Expertise variety

Expertise variety was assessed as a sum of all professional/disciplinary title types in the department [job titles were provided through human resources records and were presented in a consistent fashion such that similar expertise and functional roles were labeled in the same way (e.g., Licensed Practice Nurse, Physician, etc.)]. This variable captures the variety of expertise and reflects the range of specialized knowledge and skills represented among individuals in each department.

Control variable

As a control measure, we included department size in our analysis, recognizing its established association with performance ( Salas et al., 2008b ). This was calculated as a sum of all individual people attached to a department-location in the human resources record.

Analytic procedure

We conducted CFA using structural equation modeling in Stata 15.1 for the individuals answering each item for JPS and MVR ( N = 24,563), examining root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), the chi-squared for the model vs. saturated, the Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and the standardized root mean squared residuals (SRMR). We reviewed the descriptive means, standard deviations and correlations of the measures (as depicted in Table 2 ).

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2 . Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for the research variables.

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a set of regression analyses using SPSS version 27, including a baseline regression, a mediation model, and moderated mediation using two models; we present the underlying regressions for these models in a stepwise fashion for clarity, in a series of Estimated Models (EM), which are each labeled within Table 3 . EM1 is a baseline model that includes the control variable of department size only. We then used the PROCESS macro for SPSS developed by Hayes (2018) to estimate the remaining models. To test hypotheses 1 through 4 pertaining to direct effects and mediation, we used a mediation model based on Hayes (2018) mediation “Model 4,” drawing on 5,000 random bootstrap samples. EM2 through EM4 in the results ( Table 3 ) build up the mediation model stepwise.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 3 . Analytic results for baseline, mediation and moderated mediation models.

For the moderated mediation analysis and testing of Hypotheses 5 and 6, we began with the Hayes mediation “Model 8,” which includes two moderating relationships for the moderator term (one with the mediator and one with the outcome). We used performance as the dependent variable, JPS as the independent variable, MVR as the mediator, and EV as the moderator (presented across EM5 and EM6 in Table 3 ).

After finding that only one of the hypothesized moderating relationships was statistically significant (between EV and JPS with MVR), we then tested a moderated mediation model that used only that one moderating relationship (excluding the non-significant moderation between EV and JPS with performance) in order to check that the statistically significant moderated mediation holds with one moderating relationship between EV and JPS on MVR ( Hayes, 2018 ; “Model 7”). We present the findings from the moderated mediation with this single moderating relationship across EM5 and EM7. To interpret the form of the interactions in the moderated mediation analysis, we plotted the relationships between JPS, EV and performance/MVR using high and low levels of JPS and expertise at one standard deviation above and below their means ( Aiken et al., 1991 ).

Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a significant model with satisfactory goodness of fit ( Hu and Bentler, 1999 ; x 2 N = 24,563, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.038, SRMR = 0.016, AIC = 302377.974) suggesting that JPS and MVR loaded onto two factors as expected. The two-factor structure yielded a substantially better fit than when JPS and MVR were collapsed into one factor ( N = 24,563, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.701, TLI = 0.501, RMSEA = 0.361, SRMR = 0.182, AIC = 3309). These findings suggest that JPS and MVR are two distinct constructs ( Cangur and Ercan, 2015 ).

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics and the correlations among the control, independent, and dependent variables at the department level.

Hypothesis testing

Table 3 presents the results of the baseline, mediation, and moderated mediation models, all of which include department size as a control variable. Consistent with hypothesis 1, we found a significant relationship between JPS and performance ( b = 0.33, SE = 0.02, p < 0.01; see EM 2). We also found evidence consistent with hypothesis 2 relating JPS to MVR ( b = 0.62, SE = 0.02, p < 0.01; see EM 3). When regressing, JPS and MVR on performance (see EM 4), we found a significant relationship between JPS and performance ( b = 0.10, SE = 0.02, p < 0.01), and MVR and performance ( b = 0.37, SE = 0.02, p < 0.01). The effects of the mediation pathways are significant as follows: the total effect of JPS on performance = 0.33 (Bootstrapped SE = 0.02, with 95% CI [0.29, 0.36]), the direct effect of JPS on performance = 0.10 (Bootstrapped SE = 0.02, with 95% CI [0.06, 0.14]), and the indirect effect of JPS to performance through MVR is = 0.23 (Bootstrapped SE = 0.02, with 95% CI [0.20, 0.26]). Taken together, these results support Hypothesis 4 pertaining to the presence of mediation.

For the first part of moderated mediation analysis, we regressed JPS, EV, and the interaction between JPS and EV on MVR (see EM 5). We found a significant interaction ( b = 0.05, SE = 0.02, p < 0.05), which supports hypothesis 5a. Figure 2A visually presents the form of the interaction, plotting the relationship between JPS, EV, and MVR using high and low levels of JPS and expertise at one standard deviation above and below their means ( Aiken et al., 1991 ).

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 2 . (A) Two-way interaction between JPS and EV on MVR as the dependent variable. (B) Two-way interaction between JPS and EV on performance as the dependent variable.

For the second part of moderated mediation model, we regressed JPS, MVR, and EV and the interaction between JPS and EV on performance (see EM 6). The interaction between JPS and EV was not statistically significant ( b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, p = 0.16). Hypotheses 5b and 6 were thus not supported. Figure 2B visually presents the form of the interaction, plotting the relationship between JPS and EV and performance using high and low levels of JPS and EV at one standard deviation above and below their means ( Aiken et al., 1991 ).

We then re-tested the moderated mediation model while excluding the non-significant moderation between JPS and EV on performance from the model (Model 7, Hayes, 2018 ). We found a significant relationship between JPS and performance ( b = 0.10, SE = 0.02, p < 0.01; Table 2 , EM 7), and MVR and performance ( b = 0.37, SE = 0.02, p < 0.01). The index of moderated mediation (PROCESS, Model 7; Hayes, 2018 ) support a moderated mediation model (indirect effect = 0.02, Boot SE = 0.01, with 95% CI [0.01, 0.03]). The results support a moderated-mediation model with EV moderating the relationship between JPS and MVR, and MVR mediating the relationship between JPS and performance.

This study sought to extend understanding of JPS within an organizational context characterized by fluid teamwork. We found evidence in support of a moderated mediation model, in which JPS was associated with performance directly and through MVR as a mediator, and in which JPS was most strongly related to MVR when expertise variety was high. These findings advance the nascent theory and research on JPS in fluid teamwork environments. They highlight JPS as valuable for organizations seeking to improve performance.

Building upon the recently identified concept of JPS in research on fluid cross-sector teams ( Kerrissey et al., 2021 ), we found that JPS was also associated with performance within organizational work units that rely upon highly fluid teams of experts to conduct complex work. Our results show that this relationship held when controlling for departmental size, and the results indicate that a substantial proportion of the variance was explained even in the parsimonious models that we used (i.e., observing the r-squared terms ranging from 0.34 to 0.35). As an orientation, JPS is focused on the presence of a shared emphasis, focusing on the interpersonal rather than informational aspects of fluid teamwork—particularly, how people approach one another in reference to the work they are doing together and the problems they face. Though connected conceptually and likely empirically, it is thus distinct from other measures that focus on factors like transactive memory systems and information sharing (e.g., Hollingshead, 2001 ; Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009 ). Our results lend evidence to JPS as a factor worth examining.

Through mediation analysis, we found that part of the relationship between JPS and performance occurred through an enhanced recognition of the value that others can offer in collaborative work. This aligns with the perspective that experts must be able to swiftly establish a common understanding ( Reyes and Salas, 2019 )—and our findings lend evidence to the idea that JPS may help experts to do this more readily as they team up day-to-day with others. Put practically in an example, this represents the notion that a physician may not necessarily only need to learn afresh what a nurse “knows” but also to recognize that what a nurse knows about a patient from serving at their bedside is an important and valid input to the care process that is worth deliberately incorporating. This type of recognition may often come through familiarity in stable teams; it appears that JPS may also enable it, even without the luxury of stable teamwork over time.

Our findings lend support to EV as a moderator. However, it was only statistically significant for the relationship between JPS and MVR and not for the direct relationship between JPS and performance. The pattern for the moderating relationship between JPS and MVR was notable. As Figure 2A depicts, we found that when JPS was low, high EV resulted in less MVR. As JPS increased, MVR increased for all levels of EV. When JPS was high, organizational units with more EV showed higher MVR than units with lower EV. This suggests that in units with less EV, a little JPS may go a long way to foster MVR, but when there is substantial EV, a relatively high amount of JPS may be needed to expand MVR. This underscores the importance of JPS in highly expertise-varied environments for rapidly establishing awareness of what other expertise domains can contribute. This is especially notable in contrast to the moderation of the direct relationship between JPS and performance, which though not statistically significant implied the potential of a notably different pattern, in which greater EV always strengthened the relationship between JPS and performance, regardless of the level of JPS ( Figure 2B ). This contrast seems plausible, as having more expertise to draw from extends the pool of task-relevant perspectives and informational resources to draw from, which serves to enhance team performance directly ( Van Knippenberg et al., 2004 ). Our findings suggest that for MVR this advantage is likely to differ, requiring substantial JPS to engender MVR when EV is high.

Implications for theory and future research

Our findings contribute to the emerging literature on fluid teamwork, for which there have been calls for more research ( Tannenbaum et al., 2012 ; Wageman et al., 2012 ; Mortensen and Haas, 2018 ). In exploring JPS within organizational units where highly fluid teamwork is dominant, we found that a factor that was initially studied in the unique context of cross-sector teams remained relevant, and our analyses enhanced our understanding of how it yields performance through the moderated mediation model we test. We nonetheless view our study with an exploratory lens, given the nascency of research on fluid teamwork and the empirical difficulty of studying fluid teamwork at scale within organizations, which often leads to “glimpses” rather than comprehensive pictures of this dynamic phenomenon ( Kerrissey et al., 2020 ). There is a great deal more to explore and learn.

A main contribution of this research is to extend JPS to the organizational work unit context and to better understand how JPS operates and the boundary conditions that might shape its effectiveness in organizational contexts. While we find support for our conceptual model of moderated mediation, there are likely other important boundary conditions and mechanisms that can be proposed and explored in future research. For example, future research might examine how hierarchy and team climate measures such as psychological safety might relate to JPS and performance ( Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006 ). Research is also needed to identify ways to prompt JPS and to do so in a way that further facilitates MVR. One promising avenue may be through interventions focused on reflection; research on interprofessional collaboration, for instance, has underscored the value of reflection in helping individuals loosen the dominance of their tacitly acquired professional identities that prevent them from collaborating more effectively ( Wackerhausen, 2009 ).

While we examine JPS and MVR across a 2-year timeframe, there is great opportunity to examine these relationships with more longitudinal time points and a greater focus on temporal developments. Both theory on teams and theory on problem solving present development as a temporal process; for example, the model of problem solving of Mac Duffie (1997) articulates problem definition, analysis, generation and selection of solutions, testing and evaluation of solutions, and routinization. Future theoretical work might integrate the temporal models around team development and problem-solving fruitfully to conceptualize how JPS unfolds. Further, there is opportunity for in-depth ethnographic research to examine JPS in real-world settings to identify its antecedents. This kind of in-depth longitudinal work may be particularly valuable given the likelihood of mutually reinforcing relationships; although our measurement timeframe and theory suggest that JPS generates MVR, it is also plausible that MVR further reinforces JPS. Indeed, the decision to ask for problem-solving assistance is enhanced by a cognitively-based appraisal of that person ( Nebus, 2006 ). Studies to investigate how team processes dynamically unfold are needed, for instance, event and time-based behavioral observation ( Kolbe and Boos, 2019 ).

Because our purpose in this paper was to explore and extend the concept of JPS for fluid teamwork environments, we focused on JPS alongside a mediator and moderator rather than comparing JPS to alternative factors. We thus do not attempt to make a comprehensive model of team fluidity and performance—there are other factors that matter, and future research can explore how they compare to or interact with JPS. For example, our hypothesizing and findings in support of MVR as a key mediator differ from common explanations in more stable teamwork environments, where for instance collective psychological ownership is thought to be valuable for prompting effort, commitment and sacrifice among members, rather than elements of mutual value recognition ( Pierce and Jussila, 2011 ; Gray et al., 2020 ). It may be that in highly fluid teamwork among experts commitment mechanisms, though likely present to some degree, are less central because high fluidity may make commitment to any particular team entity less essential. This would be interesting to test in future research. A second, related area of extension could examine positive affective relationships, which are often cited as important factors in intact teams. However, research on problem-solving work has found a performance benefit to seeking out problem solving assistance from “dissonant ties,” i.e., difficult colleagues with whom a relationship may be fraught ( Brennecke, 2020 ). This points to potentially interesting and important differences in the role of positive affective bonds, relative to MVR, in highly fluid teamwork among experts; for instance, it is possible that MVR can develop effectively among dissonant ties, helping to value contributions even when other bonds remain suboptimal. Future research could compare and test these ideas.

Implications for practice

For practice, our findings suggest that organizational leaders and managers might look to joint problem-solving orientations as a key factor to promote performance within their organizational units where fluid teamwork occurs. This is important given that fluid teamwork is a reality in many highly dynamic, expertise-driven work settings ( Mortensen and Haas, 2018 ). Our research suggests that when fluid teamwork prevents people from gaining in-depth familiarity with other individuals—a key to performance in stable teams ( Hackman, 2002 )—they may nonetheless through joint problem-solving orientations come to better recognize the value of others’ contributions and thereby generate performance.

For organizations, looking for ways to hire for, foster, measure and reward JPS may be highly valuable. Our measurement of JPS at the departmental level in this study suggests that organizations may use this level of measurement to inform and improve their fluid teamwork in practice, as they may find it onerous or infeasible to track such measures at the team level amid such high fluidity (e.g., in healthcare, it might otherwise require surveying staff for each of the many teams they interact with per day). Moreover, that a department-level measure of JPS has predictive power for performance in a fluid teamwork environment may also offer to practitioners a pragmatic entity for intervention. Consider the alternative for a highly dynamic organizational environment: even if an organization were able to collect data on each fluid team that formed, if those teams are so fluid, distinct and often short-lived as they are in healthcare, then it would nonetheless not be clear who would be responsible for intervening, when, or with whom. That organization might then have beautiful data on which teams perform best, and which need help, only to realize that none of the teams still exist. For this reason, a departmental or similar unit-based measurement approach may be advantageous to intervention within organizations.

Limitations and future research

This study has limitations. First, while the analysis was conducted across a large number of work units (i.e., departments), it was conducted within one overarching healthcare delivery organization. Future efforts to further test these measures and relationships in other organizations and industries where fluid teamwork is central are needed to inform the generalizability of our findings. There are aspects of healthcare delivery, such as the overarching shared mission of delivering high quality patient care across disciplines, that may make JPS more salient for performance and MVR more relevant as a mediator in this context than others. Second, there are limitations in measuring these concepts at a departmental level. We did not have access to measures of variation by degree of fluidity in teamwork, and presumably there is some variation in degree of fluidity across departments in our study that would be fruitful to explore. Moreover, we recognize that measuring constructs at the departmental unit is imperfect in healthcare, especially as additional teamwork occurs across departments. However, because the preponderance of work occurs within departments (i.e., within an intensive care unit) and because JPS influences the interactions among members teaming up within the department, we believe it is a useful and reasonable simplification. In addition, the consistency and agreement measures (e.g., ICCs and RWGs) we analyzed provided empirical evidence that the key constructs were similar within and different across the departments. Third, future research can further develop the concept and refine the measurement of MVR, given its significant relationship to JPS and performance in our exploratory analysis. Fourth, because we measured JPS and MVR within the department rather than measuring these factors in each fluid team that occurred, our results address the department environment rather than the fluid team as the unit of analysis. While this offers advantages for pragmatism and practice, it is also a limitation for understanding team-level orientations and processes. Future research could fruitfully extend theory in this area by observing JPS as it forms in the moment within fluid teams.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because this is organizational data with sensitive employee information that authors have access to under condition of not sharing it. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to [email protected] .

Ethics statement

The study involving humans was approved by Harvard University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements.

Author contributions

MK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZN: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

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

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., and Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Google Scholar

Andreatta, P. B. (2010). A typology for health care teams. Health Care Manag. Rev. 35, 345–354. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181e9fceb

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bechky, B. A., and Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 239–261. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263060

Bedwell, W. L., Ramsay, P. S., and Salas, E. (2012). Helping fluid teams work: a research agenda for effective team adaptation in healthcare. Transl. Behav. Med. 2, 504–509. doi: 10.1007/s13142-012-0177-9

Brennecke, J. (2020). Dissonant ties in intraorganizational networks: why individuals seek problem-solving assistance from difficult colleagues. Acad. Manag. J. 63, 743–778. doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0399

Buhlman, N., and Lee, T. H. (2019). When patient experience and employee engagement both improve, hospitals’ ratings and profits climb. Harvard Business Review.

Burke, C. S., Salas, E., Wilson-Donnelly, K., and Priest, H. (2004). How to turn a team of experts into an expert medical team: guidance from the aviation and military communities. BMJ Qual. Saf. 13, i96–i104. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.009829

Bushe, G. R., and Chu, A. (2011). Fluid teams: solutions to the problems of unstable team membership. Organ. Dyn. 40, 181–188. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.005

Cangur, S., and Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 14, 152–167. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1430453580

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15, 555–568. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0094

Chen, G., and Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 549–556. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.549

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cronin, M. A., and Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 761–773. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275511

Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., and Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: are we there yet? Acad. Manag. Ann. 5, 571–612. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2011.590297

Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Manag. Sci. 50, 352–364. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1030.0134

Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., and Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 1107–1123. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.19573112

Dibble, R., and Gibson, C. B. (2018). Crossing team boundaries: a theoretical model of team boundary permeability and a discussion of why it matters. Hum. Relat. 71, 925–950. doi: 10.1177/0018726717735372

Driskell, J. E., and Salas, E. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance. Hum. Factors 34, 277–288. doi: 10.1177/001872089203400303

Eby, L. T., and Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 18, 275–295. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C

Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Edmondson, A. C., and Harvey, J. F. (2017). Extreme Teaming: Lessons in Complex, Cross-Sector Leadership . Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Edmondson, A. C., and Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: the challenges are the benefits. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 26, 123–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00341.x

Ericsson, K. A., and Smith, J. (1991). Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gray, S. M., Knight, A. P., and Baer, M. (2020). On the emergence of collective psychological ownership in new creative teams. Organ. Sci. 31, 141–164. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2019.1307

Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances . Brighton: Harvard Business Press.

Hagemann, V., and Kluge, A. (2017). Complex problem solving in teams: the impact of collective orientation on team process demands. Front. Psychol. 8:1730. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730

Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: professional cultures as barriers. J. Interprof. Care 19, 188–196. doi: 10.1080/13561820500081745

Hargadon, A. B., and Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: a field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17, 484–500. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0200

Harrison, D. A., and Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 1199–1228. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.26586096

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach . New York: Guilford publications.

Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 1080–1089. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1080

Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Huckman, R. S., and Staats, B. R. (2011). Fluid tasks and fluid teams: the impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 13, 310–328. doi: 10.1287/msom.1100.0321

Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., and Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: evidence from Indian software services. Manag. Sci. 55, 85–100. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0921

Kerrissey, M., Mayo, A., and Edmondson, A. (2021). Joint problem-solving orientation in fluid cross-boundary teams. Acad. Manag. Discov. 7, 381–405. doi: 10.5465/amd.2019.0105

Kerrissey, M., Novikov, Z., Tietschert, M., Phillips, R., and Singer, S. J. (2023). The ambiguity of “we”: perceptions of teaming in dynamic environments and their implications. Soc. Sci. Med. 320:115678. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115678

Kerrissey, M. J., Satterstrom, P., and Edmondson, A. C. (2020). Into the fray: adaptive approaches to studying novel teamwork forms. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 62–86. doi: 10.1177/2041386620912833

Klein, K., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., and Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 51, 590–621. doi: 10.2189/asqu.51.4.590

Kolbe, M., and Boos, M. (2019). Laborious but elaborate: the benefits of really studying team dynamics. Front. Psychol. 10, 1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01478

LeBreton, J. M., and Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ. Res. Methods 11, 815–852. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642

Li, J., and van Knippenberg, D. (2021). The team causes and consequences of team membership change: a temporal perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 15, 577–606. doi: 10.5465/annals.2019.0110

Mac Duffie, J. P. (1997). The road to “root cause”: shop-floor problem-solving at three auto assembly plants. Manag. Sci. 43, 479–502. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.43.4.479

Mayo, A. T. (2022). Syncing up: a process model of emergent interdependence in dynamic teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 67, 821–864. doi: 10.1177/00018392221096451

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., and DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 535–546. doi: 10.1037/a0013773

Mortensen, M., and Haas, M. R. (2018). Rethinking teams: from bounded membership to dynamic participation. Organ. Sci. 29, 341–355. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1198

Muskat, B., Anand, A., Contessotto, C., Tan, A. H. T., and Park, G. (2022). Team familiarity—boon for routines, bane for innovation? A review and future research agenda. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 32:100892. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100892

Nebus, J. (2006). Building collegial information networks: a theory of advice network generation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31, 615–637. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.21318921

Nembhard, I. M., and Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 941–966. doi: 10.1002/job.413

Pierce, J. L., and Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context: Theory, Research Evidence, and Application . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Retelny, D., Robaszkiewicz, S., To, A, Lasecki, W. S., Patel, J., Rahmati, N., et al. (2014). “Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams” in Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology—UIST’14, 75–85.

Reyes, D. L., and Salas, E. (2019). What makes a team of experts an expert team? in The Psychology of High Performance: Developing Human Potention into Domain Specific Talent . (eds.) R.F. Subotnik, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, and F.C. Worrell (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 141–159

Rosen, M. A., Diazgranados, D., Dietz, A. S., Benishek, L. E., Thompson, D., and Weaver, S. J. (2018). Teamwork in healthcare: key discoveries enabling safer. Am. Psychol. 73, 433–450. doi: 10.1037/amp0000298

Rosen, C. C., Gabriel, A. S., Lee, H. W., Koopman, J., and Johnson, R. E. (2021). When lending an ear turns into mistreatment: an episodic examination of leader mistreatment in response to venting at work. Pers. Psychol. 74, 175–195. doi: 10.1111/peps.12418

Rosenbaum, L. (2019). Divided we fall. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 684–688. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1813427

Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., and Rosen, M. A. (2008a). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and developments. Hum. Factors 50, 540–547. doi: 10.1518/001872008X288457

Salas, E., Diaz Granados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., et al. (2008b). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Hum. Factors 50, 903–933. doi: 10.1518/001872008X375009

Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., and McDaniel, S. H. (2018). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. Am. Psychol. 73, 593–600. doi: 10.1037/amp0000334

Song, H., Chien, A. T., Fisher, J., Martin, J., Peters, A. S., Hacker, K., et al. (2015). Development and validation of the primary care team dynamics survey. Health Serv. Res. 50, 897–921. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12257

Song, H., Ryan, M., Tendulkar, S., Fisher, J., Martin, J., Peters, A. S., et al. (2017). Team dynamics, clinical work satisfaction, and patient care coordination between primary care providers: a mixed methods study. Health Care Manag. Rev. 42, 28–41. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000091

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., and Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: are research and practice evolving fast enough? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 5, 2–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.x

Valentine, M. A., and Edmondson, A. C. (2015). Team scaffolds: how mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organ. Sci. 26, 405–422. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0947

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., and Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 1008–1022. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

Wackerhausen, S. (2009). Collaboration, professional identity and reflection across boundaries. J. Interprof. Care 23, 455–473. doi: 10.1080/13561820902921720

Wageman, R., Gardner, H., and Mortensen, M. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: new directions for teams research. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 301–315. doi: 10.1002/job.1775

Whitt, N., Harvey, R., and Child, S. (2007). How many health professionals does a patient see during an average hospital stay? N. Z. Med. J. 120:U2517.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Keywords: teamwork, fluid teamwork, healthcare, joint problem-solving, survey

Citation: Kerrissey M and Novikov Z (2024) Joint problem-solving orientation, mutual value recognition, and performance in fluid teamwork environments. Front. Psychol . 15:1288904. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1288904

Received: 05 September 2023; Accepted: 02 January 2024; Published: 13 February 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Kerrissey and Novikov. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Michaela Kerrissey, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Cart

  • 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

Are You Being Emotionally Manipulated at Work?

  • Luis Velasquez

joint the problem solving

Protect yourself with these five strategies.

Research has shown that emotional manipulation (EM) can significantly impact individuals’ well-being and productivity. It can systematically influence cognitive control, which is crucial for effective decision-making and problem-solving, and can also affect individuals’ interpersonal relationships and overall mental health, further impacting their productivity and satisfaction in the workplace. If you think you’re being emotionally manipulated at work, try these five strategies to protect yourself — and your workplace.

Sarah, a former client of mine, was an experienced professional known for her dedication and hard work ethic. Her manager shared a personal story of their own struggles with workload and implied that if Sarah were to take on additional work, she would demonstrate true loyalty and commitment to the team and make an impression on leadership. Sarah began to feel an increased sense of obligation, in addition to guilt and stress. She felt manipulated into a situation where saying no seemed like a betrayal and lack of commitment, even though the extra workload affected her well-being and even her own deliverables.

  • Luis Velasquez , MBA, Ph.D. is an executive coach who works with senior leaders and their teams to become more cohesive, effective, and resilient.  He is the founder and managing partner of  Velas Coaching LLC , a leadership facilitator at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, a former University professor, and research scientist. Connect with him on  LinkedIn.

Partner Center

AI helps boost creativity in the workplace but still can't compete with people's problem-solving skills, study finds

  • Artificial intelligence is disrupting professional workplaces with systems like ChatGPT and Gemini.
  • A study found that people mistrust AI for the wrong reasons while trusting it for tasks where it might mess up.
  • AI boosts performance in creative tasks but performs poorly in problem-solving, the study found.

Insider Today

Artificial intelligence is coming to change your workplace .

The rapidly evolving technology has already started to disrupt day-to-day activities in professional settings, and leaders at the forefront of the AI revolution have been clear about how they hope to implement systems like ChatGPT and Gemini into the mainstream workflow.

But while many employees may be cautiously skeptical about the impending AI overhaul, a recent study found that people are actually mistrustful of artificial intelligence for the wrong reasons while frequently trusting in the technology for tasks it's more likely to mess up.

The September 2023 study, which is titled " How People Can Create—and Destroy—Value with Generative AI ," was spearheaded by François Candelon, the managing director and senior partner at consulting company Boston Consulting Group.

The study's findings are back in the news this week after Candelon sat down with the Wall Street Journal's Executive Insights podcast to discuss generative AI in the workplace.

Candelon partnered with talent from top universities like MIT, Wharton, Harvard Business School, and the University of Warwick, and used his consulting company's own employees to execute the experiment, which he told The Journal was inspired by his desire to figure out how humans and AI can work together to help businesses.

The more than 750 study participants were given real tasks, including "creative product innovation" assignments. The participants were instructed to use OpenAI tool GPT-4 to help them with tasks like pitching the shoe concepts to their boss, coming up with focus group questions, and executing a successful social media rollout, Candelon said.

The study found that people using AI faired much better than those working without it when it came to creative product innovation tasks. About 90% of the participants improved their performance when using AI for any task involving ideation and content creation.

Participants also converged on a performance level that was 40% higher than those working on the same task without GPT-4, according to the study.

The most benefits were seen when people didn't try to change or improve the technology's output suggestions, accepting GPT-4's suggestions as is, the study found.

But there are still some tasks where humans have the edge. People's problem-solving skills far outweigh the help offered by AI, Candelon said.

The study found that generative AI actually persuaded several participants to accept GPT's misleading output, even when they had been briefed on the possibility of wrong answers.

Participants who used AI for problem-solving tasks performed 23% worse than those who didn't use the tool at all, according to the study.

The "double-edged sword" that is generative AI, with its "relatively uniform output," can also reduce a group's diversity of thought by 41%, the study found.

But Candelon stressed to The Journal that AI is exceedingly powerful and, ultimately, unavoidable.

"There is this famous quote saying that humans won't get replaced by AI. They will get replaced by humans using AI," he told the outlet.

Candelon said the study shows that data will become even more important with generative AI in the workplace, forcing people to revisit their workflows and figure out places for human and AI collaboration.

joint the problem solving

Watch: AI will drive personalization, not creativity, says Roku's VP of growth marketing, Sweta Patel

joint the problem solving

  • Main content
  • Get Inspired
  • Announcements

Gemini 1.5: Our next-generation model, now available for Private Preview in Google AI Studio

February 15, 2024

joint the problem solving

Last week, we released Gemini 1.0 Ultra in Gemini Advanced. You can try it out now by signing up for a Gemini Advanced subscription . The 1.0 Ultra model, accessible via the Gemini API, has seen a lot of interest and continues to roll out to select developers and partners in Google AI Studio .

Today, we’re also excited to introduce our next-generation Gemini 1.5 model , which uses a new Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) approach to improve efficiency. It routes your request to a group of smaller "expert” neural networks so responses are faster and higher quality.

Developers can sign up for our Private Preview of Gemini 1.5 Pro , our mid-sized multimodal model optimized for scaling across a wide-range of tasks. The model features a new, experimental 1 million token context window, and will be available to try out in  Google AI Studio . Google AI Studio is the fastest way to build with Gemini models and enables developers to easily integrate the Gemini API in their applications. It’s available in 38 languages across 180+ countries and territories .

1,000,000 tokens: Unlocking new use cases for developers

Before today, the largest context window in the world for a publicly available large language model was 200,000 tokens. We’ve been able to significantly increase this — running up to 1 million tokens consistently, achieving the longest context window of any large-scale foundation model. Gemini 1.5 Pro will come with a 128,000 token context window by default, but today’s Private Preview will have access to the experimental 1 million token context window.

We’re excited about the new possibilities that larger context windows enable. You can directly upload large PDFs, code repositories, or even lengthy videos as prompts in Google AI Studio. Gemini 1.5 Pro will then reason across modalities and output text.

Upload multiple files and ask questions We’ve added the ability for developers to upload multiple files, like PDFs, and ask questions in Google AI Studio. The larger context window allows the model to take in more information — making the output more consistent, relevant and useful. With this 1 million token context window, we’ve been able to load in over 700,000 words of text in one go. Gemini 1.5 Pro can find and reason from particular quotes across the Apollo 11 PDF transcript. 
[Video sped up for demo purposes]
Query an entire code repository The large context window also enables a deep analysis of an entire codebase, helping Gemini models grasp complex relationships, patterns, and understanding of code. A developer could upload a new codebase directly from their computer or via Google Drive, and use the model to onboard quickly and gain an understanding of the code. Gemini 1.5 Pro can help developers boost productivity when learning a new codebase.  
Add a full length video Gemini 1.5 Pro can also reason across up to 1 hour of video. When you attach a video, Google AI Studio breaks it down into thousands of frames (without audio), and then you can perform highly sophisticated reasoning and problem-solving tasks since the Gemini models are multimodal. Gemini 1.5 Pro can perform reasoning and problem-solving tasks across video and other visual inputs.  

More ways for developers to build with Gemini models

In addition to bringing you the latest model innovations, we’re also making it easier for you to build with Gemini:

Easy tuning. Provide a set of examples, and you can customize Gemini for your specific needs in minutes from inside Google AI Studio. This feature rolls out in the next few days. 
New developer surfaces . Integrate the Gemini API to build new AI-powered features today with new Firebase Extensions , across your development workspace in Project IDX , or with our newly released Google AI Dart SDK . 
Lower pricing for Gemini 1.0 Pro . We’re also updating the 1.0 Pro model, which offers a good balance of cost and performance for many AI tasks. Today’s stable version is priced 50% less for text inputs and 25% less for outputs than previously announced. The upcoming pay-as-you-go plans for AI Studio are coming soon.

Since December, developers of all sizes have been building with Gemini models, and we’re excited to turn cutting edge research into early developer products in Google AI Studio . Expect some latency in this preview version due to the experimental nature of the large context window feature, but we’re excited to start a phased rollout as we continue to fine-tune the model and get your feedback. We hope you enjoy experimenting with it early on, like we have.

Book cover

Environmental Dispute Resolution pp 56–75 Cite as

Joint Problem Solving

  • Lawrence S. Bacow 4 &
  • Michael Wheeler 4 , 5  

85 Accesses

Part of the Environment, Development, and Public Policy book series (EDPE)

In their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981) Roger Fisher and William Ury contend that effective negotiators are those who can convert competitive bargaining into joint problem solving. The search for mutually beneficial outcomes is, in their view, the key to success.

  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Joint Problem
  • Green Liquor
  • Consent Decree

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Buying options

  • 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

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Lawrence S. Bacow & Michael Wheeler

New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Michael Wheeler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Bacow, L.S., Wheeler, M. (1984). Joint Problem Solving. In: Environmental Dispute Resolution. Environment, Development, and Public Policy. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2296-0_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2296-0_4

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4899-2298-4

Online ISBN : 978-1-4899-2296-0

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

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

The Register

Going with the flow makes AI better at solving coding problems

Careful prompting can beat training a model from scratch.

Interview   Commercial large language models' abilities to solve competitive programming problems can be significantly boosted by carefully guiding its processes through clever prompt engineering.…

To demonstrate this, Codium AI, based in Israel, built AlphaCodium and released the software on GitHub this month. AlphaCodium is not a large language model per se. Instead it's a method that improves the problem-solving abilities of generative AI tools like GPT-4 by using what CEO Itamar Friedman calls "flow engineering."

First, a programming question is fed to the underlying large language model, and it's asked to describe and summarize the problem. That information then guides how it should begin to solve the problem. AlphaCodium defines things, like what the inputs and outputs should be, when coming up with a solution. All of this is specified in natural language.

The model then begins to generate code that aligns with the specifications it just described. Programming competitions asking contenders to code to spec typically provide tests showing what a script should output for a given input. AlphaCodium generates more of these test cases, and then it runs though possible solutions to check if the code is working as expected.

If it doesn't manage to match any of the outputs defined in any of the tests, the model generates different solutions until they pass all the tests or it fails. Errors can arise when its code doesn't compile or is just wrong.

You can see the different steps in the flow engineering process in the diagram below. It is largely split into a pre-processing phase, where the system analyzes the problem in natural language, and a code iteration stage, where it runs possible solutions against public and AI-generated tests.

"We don't take the problem and go to the model and tell it, 'Hey, please generate the final solution,'" Friedman told The Register. "We ask the model to please redefine this problem in bullet points." Simplifying it and breaking things up into chunks makes it easier for the model to later generate code for different parts of an algorithm.

Essentially, flow engineering is a procedure that guides the model's problem-solving process by splitting it into well-defined steps. Prompting it to "divide the generated code into small sub-functions, with meaningful names and functionality," we're told, leads to fewer bugs and makes the code easier to test and fix.

"We basically spent 95 percent of our time on flow engineering, and only 5 percent on prompt engineering and we did not change the prompts for each [step]," Friedman added.

Engineers from Codium tested their model's performance on hundreds of problems used in the verification and test parts of the CodeForces data set compiled by Google DeepMind two years ago. They claim that AlphaCodium was better at solving coding problems than Google DeepMind's AlphaCode and AlphaCode2 models.

In results reported in an arXiv paper [PDF], AlphaCodium was able to correctly answer 44 percent of the questions compared to AlphaCode's 24 percent, while generating only five solutions compared to AlphaCode's ten chosen solutions for 107 validation problems. Interestingly, the gap narrowed when it came to 165 test problems with AlphaCodium solving 29 percent compared to AlphaCode's 28 percent.

AlphaCode selects the ten most promising solutions out of tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of possible scripts it generates – making it computationally intensive to run.

"We focused much more on the entire flow of testing," Friedman said. "For [Google], they did so much work on the generation. They try to generate hundreds of other options and we generate very few solutions, but test them really well to guide the improvement of the code."

AlphaCodium is a tiny bit better than Google DeepMind's latest AlphaCode2 model that is 10,000x more efficient than its predecessor AlphaCode, he added.

Friedman said he was confident that AlphaCodium's performance isn't due to data leakage, where the underlying model has been trained and tested on the same problems. The GPT-4 version powering AlphaCodium was trained on text scraped from the internet up until September 2021, whereas the problems it tested its system on were taken from the aforementioned CodeForces data set that was released much later.

A better apples-to-apple comparison that assesses the flow engineering process, however, is looking at GPT-4's ability to solve those same questions with and without applying AlphaCodium. Plain old GPT-4 could only correctly answer 19 and 12 percent of problems in the validation and test sets respectively, compared to the AlphaCodium-powered variant's 44 and 29 percent.

In short, it appears that implementing a careful pipeline that generates additional data to guide how code is generated and improve the testing process can be more effective than trying to train a large language model from scratch.

Codium recently released a new tool to support Python developers, who can now call AlphaCodium to directly solve a coding problem in their IDE. You can play with it here. ®

Going with the flow makes AI better at solving coding problems

IMAGES

  1. Choosing a Process

    joint the problem solving

  2. Two Businessmen Pushing The Pieces Of Puzzles The Concept Of Joint

    joint the problem solving

  3. ️ Problem solving step. 5 Problem Solving Steps. 2019-01-14

    joint the problem solving

  4. JPS Associates

    joint the problem solving

  5. What Is Problem-Solving? Steps, Processes, Exercises to do it Right

    joint the problem solving

  6. Joint problem-solving Royalty Free Vector Image

    joint the problem solving

VIDEO

  1. 18 Joints 1

  2. Railway #switch

  3. Definition of Joints? /#shorts /#definition

  4. TRUSSES BY JOINT METHOD SOLVED PROBLEM ENGINEERING MECHANICS By Dr.R.G.Biradar

  5. Welcoming All Children Module 5

  6. SOLVING PROBLEMS INVOLVING JOINT VARIATION

COMMENTS

  1. Joint problem solving: Building better relationships and better

    The joint problem solving process is not just a matter of using a good logical system, or just a matter of effective interaction and sound group processes. It is a complex interplay between 'social' and 'rational' processes.

  2. 35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

    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 ...

  3. Make Negotiating Easier by Approaching It as "Joint Problem Solving

    Just keep in mind—joint problem solving includes your needs, too. This perspective can make it a little easier to negotiate when you're not a fan of it in the first place. For more detail,...

  4. Collaborative Problem Solving: The Ultimate Guide

    What is collaborative problem solving? As defined by Webster's Dictionary, the word collaborate is to work jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor.Therefore, collaborative problem solving (CPS) is essentially solving problems by working together as a team. While problems can and are solved individually, CPS often brings about the best resolution to a problem ...

  5. Joint problem-solving

    Joint problem-solving " - Blue people really like to be involved in solving problems. It's what they live for almost, solving problems. Gives them a sense of purpose, it makes them feel...

  6. PDF Collaborative Search: The Role of Joint Problem Solving

    Yet joint problem solving takes more time because it searches more widely (and stimulates creativity). However, if the group has a hierarchical leader then the bene ts of joint problem solving depend critically on whether she acts primarily as a mentor and coach or instead imposes decisions. The group bene ts from a leader who participates

  7. 'How Do We Move Back?'

    Joint problem-solving can be a difficult matter and the mere joining of people's forces does not suffice unless people know how to collaborate. Hence, learning to learn and to work together must become an important goal in education and professional training.

  8. Phases of collaborative mathematical problem solving and joint

    A joint problem-solving space includes socially negotiated sets of knowledge elements, such as goals, problem-state descriptions, and problem-solving actions (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Roschelle ( 1992 ) argued that one of the key factors in the creation of a joint problem-solving space is the presence of repeated cycles of displaying ...

  9. Collaborative Search: The Role of Joint Problem Solving

    Sting F., Mihm J., Loch C. (2021). Collaborative Search: The Role of Joint Problem Solving. 2021/17/TOM

  10. A more reflective form of joint problem solving

    This paper explores the emergence of joint problem solving in online environments where the participants work together but at different times and from different places. Collaborations of this sort have been referred to as loosely coupled collaborations. The focus is on venue which is the virtual substitute for physical copresence under these conditions. Venue is fundamentally a social ...

  11. PDF Conflict Resolution, Part 1 Module 6: Joint Problem Solving

    Joint (or interactive) problem solving is a process in which the participants work side-by-side to define, analyze, and resolve their conflict. In this process, trust and communication are the main elements in reaching an agreement.

  12. Problem-Solving Strategies and Obstacles

    Problem-Solving Strategies and Obstacles. By. Kendra Cherry, MSEd. Kendra Cherry, MSEd. Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book." Learn about our editorial process. Updated on January 03, 2023.

  13. What is Problem Solving? Steps, Process & Techniques

    Problem Solving What is Problem Solving?. Quality Glossary Definition: Problem solving Problem solving is the act of defining a problem; determining the cause of the problem; identifying, prioritizing, and selecting alternatives for a solution; and implementing a solution. The problem-solving process Problem solving resources Problem Solving Chart

  14. Joint Problem-Solving Orientation in Fluid Cross-Boundary Teams

    Abstract Using interviews, a national field survey, and an online laboratory study, we have examined teamwork in fluid cross-boundary teams. Across three studies, we qualitatively discovered and quantitatively explored "joint problem-solving orientation" as a new team factor.

  15. PDF Working Paper Collaborative Search: The Role of Joint Problem Solving

    joint problem solving among generalists serves a second useful function: protecting against the leader imposing inferior choices. As our main contribution we propose a formal theory of collaborative search via which we estab-lish that joint problem solving is an important enabler of performance (i.e., beyond coordination)

  16. Joint Problem-solving

    Joint Problem-solving The process of exploring options, developing strategy, identifying barriers, and ultimately solving problems jointly is the most exciting, and often the most challenging aspect of the collaborative governance process.

  17. Joint problem-solving orientation, mutual value recognition, and

    Joint problem solving. Through iterative input sessions with organizational staff, we modified the joint problem-solving orientation measure developed by Kerrissey et al. (2021) for relevance within a single organization (the original measure was framed to ask about teamwork across two organizations). The adapted measure retained the ...

  18. Negotiation Education: An Institutional Approach

    The joint problem solving approach. Scholars and practitioners describe negotiation as a "joint problem solving approach." This characterization is widely used in academic literature and is specified in Army doctrine on negotiation. 12. The term "problem solving" emphasizes the upside of negotiation. An outcome can, in fact, be mutually ...

  19. What is a Problem Solving Approach?

    The problem-solving approach to negotiation includes three tenets to help parties build relationships and negotiate constructively. The problem-solving approach to negotiation is an approach first articulated in the book Getting to YES, written by Roger Fisher and William Ury. The problem-solving approach argues that (1) negotiators should work ...

  20. Organizational Joint Problem-Solving

    ganizational joint problem-solving are not initially met, steps can be taken to aid and encourage the participants to use the procedures. 1. Introduction The activities of the participants in any organization can be grouped into two broad classes: (1) planning and problem-solving and (2) performing and decision execution [3].

  21. Joint planning and problem solving roles in supply chain collaboration

    Problem solving Measurement Introduction From the last decade onwards, issues related to supply chain collaboration (SCC) have been of great interest to researchers in the field. With increasing globalisation and competition, firms have realised that they cannot sustain doing business alone.

  22. Take it from the Top: How Intensity of TMT Joint Problem Solving and

    Using data collected from TMTs in 83 firms, our results show that the: intensity of TMT joint problem solving is positively related to quality of TMT strategy implementation coordination; interaction between the intensity of TMT joint problem solving and the level of TMT interdependence attenuates the positive influence of each on quality of ...

  23. Are You Being Emotionally Manipulated at Work?

    February 23, 2024. Jordan Lye/Getty Images. Summary. Research has shown that emotional manipulation (EM) can significantly impact individuals' well-being and productivity. It can systematically ...

  24. AI Boosts Creativity, Can't Match People's Problem-Solving Skills: Study

    Participants who used AI for problem-solving tasks performed 23% worse than those who didn't use the tool at all, according to the study. The "double-edged sword" that is generative AI, with its ...

  25. Nuclear fusion: Scientists say they can use AI to solve a key problem

    Scientists say they can use AI to solve a key problem in the quest for near-limitless clean energy ... is one of the big roadblocks — disruptions — and you want any reactor to be operating 24/ ...

  26. Gemini 1.5: Our next-generation model, now available for Private

    Gemini 1.5 Pro can also reason across up to 1 hour of video. When you attach a video, Google AI Studio breaks it down into thousands of frames (without audio), and then you can perform highly sophisticated reasoning and problem-solving tasks since the Gemini models are multimodal.

  27. Joint Problem Solving

    In their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981) Roger Fisher and William Ury contend that effective negotiators are those who can convert competitive bargaining into joint problem solving. The search for mutually beneficial outcomes is, in their view, the key to success. Keywords. Environmental Protection Agency

  28. Going with the flow makes AI better at solving coding problems

    Instead it's a method that improves the problem-solving abilities of generative AI tools like GPT-4 by using what CEO Itamar Friedman calls "flow engineering." First, a programming question is fed ...

  29. Research on a Joint Distribution Vehicle Routing Problem Considering

    In order to explore the positive impact of the joint distribution model on the reduction in logistics costs in small-scale logistics enterprises, considering the demand on enterprises for simultaneous pick-up and delivery, as well as the cost of carbon emissions, this study considers the vehicle routing problem of simultaneous pick-up and delivery under a joint distribution model. First of all ...