In this chapter, we have examined the very difficult task of improving our ability to make decisions. Most untrained groups do not follow a disciplined path toward a decision. Instead, we frequently find ourselves either off the track or bogged down in conflicts that keep us from accomplishing a task. The focus in this chapter has been biased toward problem-solving groups. However, other types of groups also have to make decisions. Certainly these issues arise for families, learning groups, social groups planning events, and work groups solving organizational problems.
It is probably apparent by now that the decision-making process in most groups can be improved. In this chapter, we examined seven alternative problem-solving strategies: (1) the reflective thinking process, (2) the Kepner-Tregoe approach, (3) the fishbone technique, (4) brainstorming, (5) incrementalism, (6) mixed scanning, and (7) tacit bargaining. You might want to become familiar enough with each of these methods so that you will be able to use whichever one seems most appropriate for a given problem and a given group. Again, this illustrates the systems principle of equifinality in that several alternative methods may be used to reach the same desired end result—namely, the solution to the group's problem.
By now you may have wondered how one does decide which of the seven problem-solving strategies to use. Should you use a rational strategy, such as the reflective thinking process or brainstorming, or should you use incrementalism or tacit bargaining? The systems approach suggests that the appropriateness of any method will depend on the demands of the specific situation. Therefore, we need to be familiar with all the alternatives in order to increase our tool kit of behavioral science "tools."
The rational problem-solving methods work well in most cases but seem particularly suited to an autonomous group trying to satisfy its own needs while being allowed to do so by a democratic leader. By comparison, governmental groups are not autonomous and must answer to the taxpayers. Thus incrementalism may be appropriate, because major changes may be demanded without the luxury of enough time to gather exhaustive amounts of data on the problem. It's a little like the old story that when you are up to your hips in a swamp full of alligators, you don't want a systematic estimate of the probability of danger; you want somebody to throw you a rope!
Tacit bargaining seems to be primarily appropriate in the mixed-motive situations we described earlier. Notice the assumptions and viewpoints expressed in the following quotations. Karrass (1994), in his book on negotiating, writes, "In a successful negotiation both parties gain, but more often than not one party wins more than the other" (p. 6). In a similar vein, Korda (1975) writes, "No matter who you are, the basic truth is that your interests are nobody else's concern, your gain is inevitably someone else's loss, your failure someone else's victory" (p. 4). The viewpoint expressed in these two quotations indicates some of the attitudes and values relevant to the mixed-motive situation. These statements also describe the outcomes or consequences of bargaining types of problem-solving situations. Obviously, such competitive situations suggest very different communication behaviors and skills than would the encounter group, which stresses trust, mutual self-disclosure, and risk taking. Thus the demands of the situation play a great part in suggesting which problem-solving strategy we want to employ.
