Problem Solving in Group in Health Care

 Problem Solving By Group Method

Problem solving by a group effort is dynamic process it can be describe in 8 steps.Its advantages and tactics to prevent group think.

Group Problem Solving.

    Traditionally, managers solved most problems in isolation. However, this practice is outdated. Both the complexity of the problems and the desire of staff for meaningful participation in the workplace drive the use of group approaches to problem solving. Today, consensus-based problem solving is often the norm.

Advantages of Group Problem Solving

    Groups collectively possess more knowledge and information than any individual member and can access more strategies to solve a problem. Under the right circumstances and with the right leadership, groups can tackle more complex problems than an individual, especially when there is no right or wrong solution to the problem. People tend to rely on a small number of family strategies; a group is more likely to try multiple approaches.

    Group members may have a greater variety of training and experience and approach problems from different perspectives. Together, a group can generate more complete, more accurate, and less biased information than an individual. Groups can more effectively address issues that cross company boundaries or involve changes that require the support of all affected departments. Participatory problem solving has other advantages: it increases the probability of acceptance and understanding of the decision and improves cooperation in implementation.

    Disadvantages of Group Problem Solving There are also disadvantages to group problem solving: it takes time and resources, and it can create conflict. Group problem solving can also lead to the emergence of benign tyranny within the group. Less knowledgeable or less trusting members may allow stronger members to control group discussions and problem solving. Different participation may contribute to a power struggle between the director of nursing and some assertive members of the group.

    Managers may also object to the use of groups to make decisions. They may fear that they will not agree with the group's decision or that they will not be needed if the group makes all the decisions. Both is not the case. Some decisions rightfully belong to managers (eg, budget management), some are personnel decisions (eg, peer review, self-planning), and some are shared (eg, joint hiring decisions). Figure 8-4: Illustrates this (Shiparski, 2005).

    Group problem solving can also be influenced by group think. Group think is a negative phenomenon that occurs in close-knit groups that become isolated. Through prolonged close collaboration, group members develop similar mindsets and share similar prejudices and blind spots, such as B. Stereotypical views of strangers. Shows a strong tendency to seek compromise, which interferes with critical thinking about important decisions. Furthermore, the leadership of such groups suppresses open and fluid discussion, controlling what ideas are discussed and how much dissent is tolerated. Group think seriously impairs critical thinking and can lead to wrong and damaging decisions.

    Two phenomena have been associated with group think (Forsyth, 1983): the premature search for agreements and wishful thinking and mis perceptions. The premature search for agreement is evident in several characteristics of group think, such as:

    Self-censorship of dissenting opinions, where members with questions or concerns remain silent as "mind guards" employing "policing" to protect the group from controversial information and discourage dissenting opinions by allaying doubts about the group's decisions or beliefs, and the illusion that the group agrees despite objections and doubts

    Mis perceptions and wishful thinking are also characteristics of group think. They may include: belief that the group is morally correct, which encourages members to ignore the ethical and moral consequences of their decisions forms of - rationalization of warnings and other negative comments biased perceptions of the out group collective rationalization of conflicting information (Janis , 1982)

Use the Following Tactics to Prevent Group Think 

1. Encourage open questioning by assigning each member the appropriate critical role. Encourage the group to prioritize raising objections and strengthen them by accepting criticism.

2. Initially, the leader should delay observing their preferences and expectations until the views of others are fully revealed.

3. The leader can set up several independent working groups on the same topic. Groups reunite to explore a variety of problem-solving approaches and to iron out our differences,

4. Each member of the decision-making group should regularly discuss the group's deliberations with trusted associates in their own unit of the organization and report the views and reactions of non-members.

5. One or more external experts within the organization who are not core members of the problem-solving group should be invited in turn to each meeting to challenge the core members' views.

6. At each problem-solving meeting, at least one member of the group should be assigned the role of "the devil's advocate," trying to find fault with any arguments that might be deemed valid.

7. Whenever problem solving involves dealing with a competitor, all warning signs from the competitor should be analyzed and possible interpretations of the competitor's intentions should be explored.

8. After reaching a preliminary consensus (agreement that everyone can support, reached without a formal vote) on the best alternative, the problem-solving group should hold a second chance meeting, where it is hoped that each member will express themselves as vividly as possible remaining points. doubt and think the whole matter over before making a final decision (Jania, 1982).

    Although dealing with dissent can be complicated, time-consuming, and sometimes uncomfortable, conflict is not always dysfunctional, and quality decision-making is often required.Dialectical inquiry is another technique for minimizing group think. In dialectic research, the proponents of a plan and a counter-plan engage in a formal debate. This technique formalizes the conflict by allowing disagreement, encouraging exploration of alternative solutions, and reducing the emotional aspects of the conflict. 

    The advantages of such an approach result from the presentation and discussion of the basic assumptions underlying the proposed procedures. Any incorrect or misleading assumptions will become apparent, and the process promotes a better understanding of the issues and leads to a higher level of confidence in a decision. Some potential disadvantages of this method are that it can lead to an emphasis on who won the debate rather than what the best decision is, or it can lead to inappropriate compromises.