By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

The Lectern: The paradox of team problem-solving

As I mentioned in my last blog post, we are introducing a bunch of changes in the introductory public management course in the Master of Public Policy program. Partly, this involves moving the course from the spring to the fall. Mainly, though, we are trying to introduce new material, mostly related to "leadership." As a result, I have been spending a significant amount of time this month working on five new classes I will be teaching for the first time in the fall, including reading lots of academic research on the various topics I will be teaching.


One such area is teams. Students will be doing an in-class problem-solving exercise, in which they will first give individual answers and then work on the problem in groups. For this kind of problem -- with a clear answer -- groups almost always do better than individuals. One purpose of the exercise is to counteract a common view among young people that "if you want to do something right, do it yourself" -- students have made it to Harvard because they are strong individual performers.


In preparing for these classes, I've come across an interesting body of experimental research on problem-solving in teams. The literature uncovers a paradox. Teams are brought together to solve problems out of a view that team members can pool and discuss information coming from many sources, that several heads are better than one. However, it has been demonstrated in a number of experiments that team members are considerably more likely to bring up facts relevant to the decision that they all already know rather than facts also relevant to the decision that only a few members of the group know. Furthermore, when widely known facts and lesser-known facts are both brought up, teams tend to give more weight to the widely known facts in making decisions. The paradox is thus that an important value of team decision-making is the ability to consider a wide range of information, but group processes in teams tend to give short shrift to the new information that can come from team deliberations.


Good team leaders should be aware of this tendency and work consciously to counteract it by encouraging unmentioned facts to be brought up in a group discussion.


Steve Kelman




What do you think? Post a comment on this blog (registration required) or send an e-mail to letters@fcw.com (subject line: The Lectern) and we will post it for you.

Posted by Steve Kelman on Jul 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM


Featured

  • FCW PERSPECTIVES
    sensor network (agsandrew/Shutterstock.com)

    Are agencies really ready for EIS?

    The telecom contract has the potential to reinvent IT infrastructure, but finding the bandwidth to take full advantage could prove difficult.

  • People
    Dave Powner, GAO

    Dave Powner audits the state of federal IT

    The GAO director of information technology issues is leaving government after 16 years. On his way out the door, Dave Powner details how far govtech has come in the past two decades and flags the most critical issues he sees facing federal IT leaders.

  • FCW Illustration.  Original Images: Shutterstock, Airbnb

    Should federal contracting be more like Airbnb?

    Steve Kelman believes a lighter touch and a bit more trust could transform today's compliance culture.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.