Developing and supporting creative problem-solving ...

Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model

Elspeth McFadzean Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, UK

Keywords Teams, Facilitators , Creativity, Problem solving

Introduction

According to Carr (1994), the only way of gaining a sustainable competitive advantage Effective team development , is through the generation and use of creative facilitatio n and creative problem knowledge. Creative knowledge can be used solving are three component s that to develop new products or services, generate can help improve group problem solving and decisio n making. new strategies and opportunities, or can be Group meetings can be notoriously used to solve complex organisational ineffectiv e and inefficient . They can be significantl y improved if the problems. One method of developing creative knowledge is the utilisation of problemfacilitator and problem champion are aware of, and can influence , solving teams. Francis and Young (1992, p. 9) the variables that affect the define a team as ``a high-performing task group’s processes. This paper explores the elements involved in group whose members are actively developin g teams, enhancin g interdependent and share common facilitatio n skills and utilisin g performance objectives’’. There has been a lot creative problem-solvin g of research into teamwork and the methods techniques . These three areas are of enhancing team performance (Katzenbach, discusse d in turn before presentin g a model that shows the 1998; Bettenhausen, 1991; Van de Ven and relationship s that exist between Delbecq, 1971; Gersick, 1988; Diehl and them. This model is a useful framework for facilitators , problem Stroebe, 1987; Belbin, 1981; Tuckman, 1965; champion s and group participant s Hackman and Morris, 1975; Dennis and because it can help in the Valacich, 1993). These include research on preparation and support of group group effectiveness (Hackman and Morris, meetings. In addition , the model can also help managers to develop 1975; Gladstein, 1984), group size (Hare, 1981; training courses for team Bouchard et al., 1974), team roles (Belbin, developmen t and facilitation . 1981; Margerison and McCann, 1990), group development (Tuckman, 1965; Gersick, 1988), consensus (Orive, 1988; Watson et al., 1988), group support systems (Dennis and Valacich, 1993; Gallupe et al., 1992), facilitation (McFadzean and Nelson, 1998; Anson et al., 1995) and creativity (McFadzean, 1998a, b; Couger, 1995). Facilitation is an important factor in developing productive groups. The facilitator can help the team to improve its processes so that both its effectiveness and its efficiency can be enhanced. In addition, the facilitator should be knowledgeable about the tremendous variety of problem-solving tools and techniques (Nelson and McFadzean, Management Decision Abstract

40/5 [2002 ] 463±475

# MCB UP Limited [ISSN 0025-1747] [DOI 10.1108/0025174021043044 3]

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

1998). He or she can then choose an appropriate technique for the group to utilise in order to fulfil its goals. One method of developing innovative and novel ideas is by using creative problem solving (Von Oech, 1983; De Bono, 1992; McFadzean et al., 1998). There are countless numbers of creative problem-solving (CPS) techniques including brainstorming, object stimulation and rich pictures (VanGundy, 1988; Couger, 1995; McFadzean, 1998c). However, many managers find it difficult to organise effective creative problem-solving teams (McFadzean et al., 1999). For example, teams may lack direction and focus, they may be uncomfortable with the process or there may be boredom, discord or a lack of motivation amongst the participants (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Romig, 1996; McFadzean et al., 1999). The aim of this paper, therefore, is to present guidelines for the development and support of high performing, creative problem-solving teams. Consequently, this paper discusses the relationship between team development, facilitation and creative problem solving. To this end, a model is developed that shows the links between these three factors. A number of implications regarding this model are then presented. The body of this paper, therefore, discusses teamwork, facilitation and creative problem solving before presenting the model. The model acts as a useful framework for both facilitators and group participants alike. It will help facilitators to plan their meeting processes and interventions. Likewise, the model will aid group development and training, giving participants a framework to follow so that they can evolve and mature.

Developing high-performing teams In the past, many theorists have undertaken extensive research into organisational teams and team processes (Gersick, 1988; Tuckman,

[ 463 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

[ 464 ]

1965; Bettenhausen, 1991; Bottger and Yetton, 1987; Dennis, 1996; Marks et al., 2001; Govindarajan and Gupta, 2001). Consequently, a number of models on team effectiveness have been developed (Hackman and Morris, 1975; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1983; Pinsonneault and Kraemer, 1990). These models present a variety of variables that could influence team productivity. These include personality characteristics, group size, reward structures, work norms, task characteristics, group structure, communication, conflict, information systems, status relationships, technological support and so on. Although these models offer a valuable insight into group effectiveness, Briggs and Nunamaker (1996) propose that a more parsimonious and bounded framework could help to advance research still further. Consequently, they suggest that a productive team will only undertake three processes, namely communication, deliberation and information acquirement. The participants, however, can only perform one process at a time due to constraints on their attention. In other words, people cannot communicate, think and access information all at once. They must either talk, listen or think. In addition, Briggs and Nunamaker claim groups must develop goal congruence and reduce distractions in order to enhance their productivity. This model serves as a useful framework to illustrate a new model of group development. There are many different types of groups (Schwarz, 1994; Hackman, 1986), each of which have been, or need to be, developed to a certain level. For example, groups undertaking simple, well-structured tasks do not need to learn the intricacies of group dynamics. They should follow set procedures and guidelines and therefore no conflict or discussions should ensue. As the task becomes more complex, novel and ambiguous, teams must develop skills so that they can utilise more powerful problemsolving tools and techniques. In addition, the team should consist of appropriate members who have a wide range of skills, abilities and experiences (Hackman and Morris, 1975; Gladstein, 1984; Pinsonneault and Kraemer, 1990; Belbin, 1981; McFadzean, 1998d). According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993), a high performing team will also be empowered, self-aware and attentive to feelings and emotions. Team development is therefore a hierarchical process. McFadzean (1998c, d) has developed a new framework illustrating this hierarchy (see Figure 1). The

lowest level and the least developed team is one whose prime objective is to undertake the task. Level 2 groups concentrate on both the task and the meeting process ± developing an agenda, a timetable and a session plan. A third level team is also attentive to team development. The appropriate participants are carefully chosen and each person is assigned relevant roles and responsibilities within the group. Level 4 groups concentrate on the task, the meeting process, team development and team dynamics. In other words, these teams are also aware of relationships and behaviour. The highest developed group lies at level 5, where the members are also attentive to trust, emotions and feelings. These levels are discussed in more detail below.

Attention to the task Level 1 teams, those attentive to the task only, are concerned with getting the job done. This can occur when the task is simple or routine. In addition, teams will focus solely on the task during a crisis or if the job needs to be undertaken quickly. Dyadic teams will also tend to be task-focused since the participants have little necessity to develop their relationships and behaviour. Briggs and Nunamaker (1996) suggest that groups need to develop goal congruence. Thus, since level 1 groups are solely attentive to the task, it will be vital for these types of groups to develop more focused goals. Team members tend to have their own agendas and objectives thus they can pull the team in different directions. Developing goal congruence, therefore, is essential to group productivity so that the group can work as a whole and move in one direction only. Level 1 groups may deliberate, communicate and access information but this will only focus on task-related issues. Briggs and Nunamaker also suggest that teams will be more productive if distractions and interruptions are kept to a minimum. The group productivity model for level 1 teams is shown in Figure 2.

Attention to the meeting process A level 2 group is attentive to the meeting process. A meeting agenda, timetable and plan has therefore been discussed and developed. The agenda helps the group to stay focused throughout the meeting. It gives them a set direction to follow. Thus, it should reduce distractions such as discussing items not pertinent to the meeting. The timetable is also beneficial since each agenda item is given a set time to be completed and

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

therefore disciplines the participants to remain focused. Both the agenda and timetable can also help in the planning of the session. Here, the appropriate tools and techniques are chosen that will help the participants fulfil their task. However, if the session is only to last for an hour there is little point in setting an agenda and session plan that will take two hours to complete. Consequently, there is a trade off between time and depth of analysis/discussion. The agenda and session plan, however, should be flexible in case changes need to be made during the meeting due to unforeseen circumstances. McFadzean et al. (1999) found that groups not only needed goal congruence to be productive but they also needed process congruence. If group members do not want to utilise a certain problem-solving technique

Figure 1 The attention steps: the group’s perspective

or do not want to participate in a presentation or discussion, then the productivity of the group can be severely diminished. A level 2 group will therefore focus its attention on both the task and adhering to the meeting process. Thus, the group productivity model for a level 2 group is presented in Figure 3.

Attention to team development As the group develops, attention is also focused on the group participants. Level 3 teams are aware of the characteristics of the group ± who should be invited to join and the roles and responsibilities that they should take. The important aspect here is requisite variety ± does the group have the appropriate skills, knowledge, expertise and experience to solve the problem effectively? This may necessitate inviting other stakeholders such as suppliers or customers or inviting other personnel who have a different perspective on the situation. In addition, the team members must be aware of the roles they are to play and the responsibilities they have to the rest of the team (Belbin, 1981; Schwarz, 1994; Margerison and McCann, 1990). Level 3 groups, therefore, are attentive to the task, the meeting process and the knowledge, experience and roles that are needed to fulfil their goals effectively. The group productivity model for level 3 teams is shown in Figure 4.

Attention to team dynamics

Figure 2 Group productivity model for level 1 teams

In addition to the task, the meeting process and group development, level 4 teams will also be aware of the dynamics of the group. According to Miranda and Bostrom (1997), the group members tend to be more satisfied with their output if there is equality in participation. In other words, if every member of the team is allowed to participate in the process, they are more likely to be committed to their chosen solution. Conflict can also be beneficial to a group as long as it is undertaken in a positive and constructive manner. Destructive conflict will reduce the group’s productivity. Conflict can reduce groupthink as well as enhance creativity as it helps participants look at a situation from a variety of different perspectives. A level 4 group, therefore, is able to examine and change its own behaviours and relationships in order to improve its effectiveness. Consequently, this enables the team to manage its communication, deliberation and information access more productively. This

[ 465 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

is achieved in a more structured and positive manner, taking into account the behaviour and relationships that exist within the group. Level 4 groups are explicitly aware of these processes and are focused on making them a positive experience. This is not just so that they can develop effective results but also so that the group itself can enhance its processes, gain commitment and develop enthusiasm within the team. The group productivity model for level 4 groups is therefore shown in Figure 5.

Attention to team trust Evaluation apprehension is a common process loss in some groups (Nunamaker et al., 1991). Participants are too frightened to express their opinions or ideas for fear of ridicule. In addition, group members are reticent to try new problem-solving techniques because they do not believe they are valuable or think that they might make

Figure 3 Group productivity model for level 2 teams

them feel uncomfortable (McFadzean, 1998b). These two problems occur due to a lack of trust. The idea that has not been communicated, for instance, could prove to be very valuable. The apprehensive participant, however, does not trust the rest of his or her group and therefore does not communicate his or her idea. Likewise, the group members who are reluctant to try new techniques do not trust the facilitator even though he or she has confidence in the value of the method. In other words, the members do not believe that the technique could be beneficial. In addition, they may also be apprehensive regarding the behaviour and reactions of the other group members because they may criticise or laugh at their ideas. According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993, p. 92), high performing teams have ``members who are deeply committed to one another’s personal growth and success’’. If this occurs within a group, then the members will learn to trust one another and therefore they will be more willing to try new tools and techniques and will express themselves freely. The group productivity model for level 5 teams is shown in Figure 6.

Attention to the facilitator

Figure 4 Group productivity model for level 3 teams

[ 466 ]

Team leaders or facilitators can help groups to improve and develop. Schwarz (1994, p. 4) defines group facilitation as ``a process in which a person who is acceptable to all members of the group, substantively neutral, and has no decision-making authority intervenes to help a group improve the way it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, in order to increase the group’s effectiveness’’. Facilitators usually undertake three phases: planning the session, supporting the meeting and producing a postsession report (McFadzean and Nelson, 1998; Hunter et al., 1995; Schwarz, 1994). The pre-session planning period involves discussing the task, agenda, objectives and meeting plan with the problem champion and the potential participants. In addition, the meeting environment is chosen and set up. Essentially, the pre-session planning period allows the facilitator and the problem champion to prepare for the forthcoming meeting. The post-session report includes an account of the decisions and plans of action discussed during the session. In addition, it may also contain feedback on the meeting such as information on the group’s behaviour and dynamics, the participants’ commitment and so on.

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

During the actual session, the facilitator supports the members and helps them maintain an effective process. The facilitator achieves this by intervening at a time ``when the group’s process or other factors affecting the group interfere with its accomplishing specific, substantive goals’’ (Schwarz, 1994, p. 6). The process itself will depend on the objectives of the meeting and the development of the group. Thus, the interventions will also depend on the objectives and the group. In other words, the type of intervention made by the facilitator will depend on the level of the group. A level 1 group, for example, is attentive to the task only. The facilitator must plan and support the session with this goal in mind. It is essential, therefore, that a facilitator must plan his or her meeting knowing that the group is solely attentive to the task.

Figure 5 Group productivity model for level 4 teams

Figure 6 Group productivity model for level 5 teams

Consequently, the facilitator must ensure goal congruence during pre-session planning. He or she must therefore talk to all the potential group members in order to ascertain their own personal aims and objectives and attempt to develop goal congruence. In addition, during the session itself the facilitator must ensure that the processes utilised will help the members fulfil the goal. The interventions made during the meeting therefore will focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task and goals (Schwarz, 1994). Moreover, the post-session output should also reflect information on the task ± the outputs developed, plans of action and so on (McFadzean and Nelson, 1998). The facilitator, therefore, must be attentive to the group’s goals. This is summarised in Table I. A level 2 group is attentive to the meeting process. Consequently, the facilitator must be attentive to the goals and the meeting structure. During pre-session planning, the facilitator and problem champion must develop an agenda, a timetable and a session plan. In addition, the facilitator needs to obtain agreement for the process. Process congruence is important because if it is not obtained members may refuse to participate or discuss issues (McFadzean et al., 1999). The interventions made during the session will also involve structural issues such as keeping to time, applying ground rules and so on. They will therefore focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding process and structural issues. Any of these issues that are pertinent or can help to develop the team further can be inserted into the post-session output together with the task-relevant information. The review of the process is very valuable in order to aid the development of both the facilitator and the team. These issues are summarised in Table II. Level 3 groups are attentive to group development and they thus require a great deal of thought from both the problem champion and the facilitator on who should be invited to attend. Requisite variety is required and therefore it is the skills and knowledge and not the personalities of the participants that are important (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Consequently, during presession planning the facilitator must advise the problem champion on who should be invited to the meeting. A heterogeneous group can offer a variety of different views and perspectives and can therefore often prove to be valuable (Watson et al., 1993; Allcorn, 1990). In addition, it may also be

[ 467 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model

Table I The role of the facilitator for a level 1 group Pre-session planning

Running the session

Post-session output

Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

Ensure goal congruence

Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task and goals

Present task-related information

Source: McFadzean (1998d), reprinted with permission

Table II The role of the facilitator for a level 2 group Pre-session planning

Running the session

Post-session output

Ensure goal congruence

Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task and goals Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the meeting structure

Present task-related information

Ensure process congruence

Present structural-related information

Source: McFadzean (1998d), reprinted with permission useful to invite different stakeholders so that they too can offer different insights into the situation. The roles and responsibilities of each participant should also be discussed before the meeting so that the meeting process can run more effectively. Schwarz (1994), for example, found that because he had not discussed the roles and responsibilities of all the group members together, the senior manager did not allow any discussion to take place, thus reducing the effectiveness of the meeting. The facilitator may therefore have to intervene during the session. The interventions will focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding their roles and responsibilities. One responsibility that should be shared by all the group members is participation (Miranda and Bostrom, 1997; Nunamaker et al., 1991). A free rider is ``a member of a group who obtains benefits from group membership but does not bear a proportional share of the costs of providing the benefits’’ (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1985, p. 244). In other words, an individual within the group fails to make an effort to achieve the task. Consequently, the facilitator must intervene in order to encourage equal participation among the members. The post-session output for level 3 groups may, if necessary, include information on the roles and responsibilities of the group. This may include feedback on the effectiveness of these roles and responsibilities as well as potential strategies for improvement for later sessions. In addition, if action plans have been agreed upon during the meeting, the report should include the names of the

[ 468 ]

personnel who are responsible for fulfilling these tasks. These issues are summarised in Table III. A level 4 group is attentive to group dynamics. In other words, both the facilitator and the participants must be aware of the behaviour of, and the relationships between, the members. During pre-session planning therefore the facilitator should ascertain as much information about the potential behaviour of the participants. This will include finding out about possible political problems, conflict, factions and so on. During the meeting itself, the facilitator may have to intervene in order to ensure effective team dynamics. Thus, these interventions will focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding their behaviour and relationships. If necessary, this in turn may be written in the postsession report as feedback, together with possible solutions that can be put in place should the group meet again. These issues are summarised in Table IV. Level 5 groups are attentive to trust and these participants therefore have selfawareness and are keen to help in the success of each team member. Thus, during presession planning the facilitator should gather information on the participants’ identity and fears. For example, a participant may be afraid of making a wrong decision or being exposed as a fraud. The facilitator must be careful because he or she is not a counsellor but during the session he or she can intervene to help participants act more effectively. These interventions will focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model

Table III The role of the facilitator for a level 3 group Pre-session planning

Running the session

Post-session output

Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

Ensure goal congruence

Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task and goals Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the meeting structure Focus on the attitudes, values beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding their roles and responsibilities

Present task-related information

Ensure process congruence

Ensure that requisite variety has been established

Present structural-related information Present information on roles, responsibilities and the appropriateness of team membership

Source: McFadzean (1998d), reprinted with permission

Table IV The role of the facilitator for a level 4 group Pre-session planning

Running the session

Post-session output

Ensure goal congruence

Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task and goals Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the meeting structure Focus on the attitudes, values beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding their roles and responsibilities

Present task-related information

Ensure process congruence

Ensure that requisite variety has been established

Gather information on behavioural, political and relationship issues

Present structural-related information

Present information on roles, responsibilities and the appropriateness of team membership Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and Present information on the perceptions of the members regarding their team’s dynamics behaviour and relationships

Source: McFadzean (1998d), reprinted with permission of the members regarding their identity, emotions and self-awareness (Schwarz, 1994; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Again, if need be some feedback on these issues can be given in the post-session report, if this is appropriate. A summary of these factors is shown in Table V. The facilitator’s role therefore is dependent on the level of development of the group. Consequently, another framework can be developed that presents the levels from the facilitator’s perspective (see Figure 7). These are: Level 1. Attention to team goals ± the facilitator helps the group to develop and maintain its focus on goals rather than processes. Level 2. Attention to meeting structure ± the facilitator helps the group to develop and follow a meeting process and structure. Level 3. Attention to skills, roles and responsibilities ± the facilitator advises

the team on the appropriate group membership and agrees with them their roles and responsibilities. Level 4. Attention to relationships ± the facilitator supports the group and helps to improve the dynamics and relationships. Level 5. Attention to team feelings ± the facilitator supports the participants regarding their emotions, identity and self-awareness.

Attention to techniques Using creative problem-solving techniques can help teams to develop more innovative and novel ideas (Garfield et al., 1997; McFadzean, 1996). According to McFadzean (1998a, b), creativity techniques can be divided into three categories, namely paradigm preserving techniques, paradigm stretching techniques and paradigm breaking techniques.

[ 469 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model

Table V The role of the facilitator for a level 5 group Pre-session planning

Running the session

Post-session output

Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

Ensure goal congruence

Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task and goals Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the meeting structure Focus on the attitudes, values beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding their roles and responsibilities

Present task-related information

Ensure process congruence

Present structural-related information

Present information on roles, responsibilities and the appropriateness of team membership Gather information on Focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and Present information on the behavioural, political and perceptions of the members regarding their team’s dynamics relationship issues behaviour and relationships Gather information regarding the Focus on the attidues values, beliefs and Present information on trust, participants’ indentity and self- perceptions of the members ragarding their empowerment and self-awareness awareness feelings and emotions Ensure that requisite variety has been established

Source: McFadzean (1998d), reprinted with permission

Figure 7 The attention steps: the facilitator’s perspective

Paradigm preserving techniques do not force participants to stretch or break the boundaries around the problem space. This is analogous to digging a hole. The person wielding the spade (the problem solver) continues to dig the hole (the problem space) deeper and deeper. The boundaries around the hole therefore remain unchanged. Paradigm preserving techniques include methods such as brainstorming, force field analysis, and brainwriting (McFadzean, 1998c). Brainstorming, for example, encourages participants to build on other people’s ideas. Consequently, ideas are developed but not significantly changed. In other words, the paradigm boundaries are maintained. These techniques are useful, however, because they are comparatively

[ 470 ]

easy to use. Participants are comfortable when they are using them and the facilitator does not need to understand the behavioural and emotional factors within the group. Paradigm stretching techniques, on the other hand, can encourage more creative ideas. These include techniques such as metaphors, object stimulation and heuristic ideation technique (McFadzean, 1998c). These methods encourage participants to stretch the boundaries of their perceived problem space. So, the person digging the hole would now start to widen it. Paradigm stretching techniques use unrelated stimuli and forced association to encourage the production of novel ideas (McFadzean, 1998b; McFadzean et al., 1998). For example, heuristic ideation technique encourages participants to force

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

together two unrelated objects or concepts. In this way, new products or ideas can be developed. For instance, today we have the Internet, which is the association of two different objects ± the telephone and the computer. More imagination is needed in order to utilise paradigm stretching techniques. In addition, humour and fun are helpful too (Hemsath and Yerkes, 1997; Couger, 1995). Some managers, however, may find this threatening or uncomfortable and are therefore unwilling to undertake the activity (McFadzean et al., 1999). Consequently, both the group and the facilitator must develop process congruence and agree on the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the participants before these techniques are utilised. Paradigm breaking techniques can produce very novel and creative ideas. Here, the boundaries of the problem are completely smashed. Using the analogy of the hole as an example, the digger now no longer needs to widen or deepen the hole, he or she can dig numerous holes elsewhere. Paradigm breaking techniques include wishful thinking, rich pictures and imagining (McFadzean, 1998c). These methods use unrelated stimuli and forced association to encourage creativity. In addition, they also help participants to use all their senses and

to express themselves using other modes of communication such as drawing, dreaming and role-playing. Consequently, participants can feel uncomfortable and unsafe using these methods. Thus, groups should only utilise them if they are attentive to feelings and emotions. Creativity can, therefore, be expressed as a continuum ranging from paradigm preserving techniques to paradigm breaking techniques (see Figure 8).

Relating team development, facilitation and creativity: the attention stairway The type of team undertaking the task, the level of facilitation and the category of the creative problem-solving techniques are connected (see Figure 9). A level 1 group, for example, is only attentive to its task. Consequently, the facilitator need not undertake any high level interventions. There is little point in the facilitator asking the group participants about their feelings or behaviour when their sole objective is to fulfil the task. Likewise, a level 4 group will focus on the task, the meeting structure, participants’ roles and responsibilities and the team’s dynamics. The facilitator, in this instance, must also concentrate on these

Figure 8 The creativity continuum

[ 471 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model

Figure 9 The attention stairway: the relationship between teams, facilitation and creativity techniques

Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

elements when undertaking interventions. A level 4 group is not yet ready to discuss its emotions and feelings in depth. A level 1 group, therefore, requires level 1 facilitation, a level 2 group requires level 2 facilitation, and so on. Thus, as the facilitator is discussing the meeting with the problem champion and the potential participants prior to the session, he or she must determine the potential level of the group and thus the potential level of the facilitation.

[ 472 ]

The level of the group, and therefore the level of facilitation, also determines the level of the creative problem-solving technique to be utilised (McFadzean, 1996, 1998b). A paradigm breaking technique, for example, utilises alternative forms of expression. For instance, a technique may call for drawing or dreaming. Members may feel uncomfortable with this, claiming that they cannot draw, or that they are unable to see the value of undertaking this exercise. One common complaint by managers is that they are

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

attending the session to work not to play. The problems occur when the group participants do not trust either the facilitator and/or the other team members. They will therefore either refuse to participate in the session or the session itself will produce poor results (McFadzean, 1996; McFadzean et al., 1999). Consequently, paradigm breaking techniques should only be used if trust has been developed between the participants themselves and the participants and the facilitator. In addition, process congruence must also be obtained. These techniques, therefore, should only be undertaken by level 5 groups and a facilitator capable of undertaking level 5 interventions. Paradigm stretching techniques are less threatening and can therefore be utilised by less developed groups. These techniques, however, still use unrelated stimuli and forced association to encourage creative ideas. Many of the techniques require imagination and are therefore more effective when requisite variety has been obtained. In this situation, the team consists of members with differing perceptions and skills. The more variety, the more imaginative ideas can be developed. In addition, these techniques require forcing perhaps very strange and silly ideas back to the problem situation. These ideas are then moulded and developed into workable, practical and valuable solutions. This is best achieved by teams that are at least aware of their dynamics and behaviour. Thus, paradigm stretching techniques should be undertaken by level 4 and perhaps, at a pinch, level 3 groups. Paradigm preserving techniques use free association and need less imagination. Although some of these techniques can be complex, they are generally not uncomfortable to use and participants can easily see the value of them. Thus, less developed teams can utilise these techniques and can still derive some powerful ideas from them. The three frameworks are therefore linked. The primary factor in the model is the team framework. The team leader or facilitator must first determine the level that the team has achieved before he or she can plan either his or her interventions and meeting plan or the techniques that the team can utilise. More research needs to be undertaken on the three frameworks and the relationships between them. For instance, the two main areas of interest are: 1 What are the most effective methods of gathering information in order for the

facilitator or team leader to evaluate the level of the group? 2 What are the best methods of operationalising these frameworks in order to develop training programmes in team development, facilitation and creative problem solving?

Summary This paper has discussed three elements that can help teams become more effective. These are team development, facilitation and creative problem solving. A model for each of these three areas was constructed and described. Finally, these models were synthesised into the attention stairway. This is a framework that helps teams and facilitators to develop and learn. Moreover, the model is useful for facilitators or leaders who wish to plan sessions and support the team during the meeting.

References Albanese, R. and Van Fleet, D.D. (1985), ``Rational behaviour in groups: the free-riding tendency’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 244-55. Allcorn, S. (1990), ``Keep individuality in top management’’, Personnel Journal, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 17-22. Anson, R., Bostrom, R. and Wynne, B. (1995), ``An experiment assessing group support system and facilitator effects on meeting outcomes’’, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 189-208. Belbin, R.M. (1981), Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Heinemann, London. Bettenhausen, K.L. (1991), ``Five years of group research: what we have learned and what needs to be addressed’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 345-81. Bottger, P.C. and Yetton, P.W. (1987), ``Improving group performance by training in individual problem solving’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 651-7. Bouchard, T.J., Barsaloux, J. and Drauden, G. (1974), ``Brainstorming procedure, group size, and sex as determinants of the problemsolving effectiveness of groups and individuals’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 135-8. Briggs, R.O. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1996), ``Team theory of group productivity and its application to development and testing of group support systems’’, CMI Working Paper Series WPS-96-1, University of Arizona. Carr, C. (1994), The Competitive Power of Constant Creativity, AMACOM, New York, NY.

[ 473 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

[ 474 ]

Couger, J.D. (1995), Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding, Boyd & Fraser, Danvers, MA. De Bono, E. (1992), Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas, Harper Collins, London. Dennis, A.R. (1996), ``Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 433-57. Dennis, A.R. and Valacich, J.S. (1993), ``Computer brainstorms: more heads are better than one’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 531-7. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1987), ``Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 497-509. Francis, D. and Young, D. (1992), Improving Work Groups: A Practical Manual for Team Building, rev. ed., Pfeiffer & Co., San Diego, CA. Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1992), ``Electronic brainstorming and group size’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 350-69. Garfield, M., Satzinger, J., Taylor, N. and Dennis, A. (1997), ``The creative road: the impact of the person, process and feedback on idea generation’’, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the AIS, Indianapolis, IN. Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), ``Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 9-41. Gladstein, D.L. (1984), ``Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 499-517. Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A.K. (2001), ``Building an effective global business team’’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 63-71. Hackman, J.R. (1983), ``A normative model of work team effectiveness’’, Technical Report No. 2, Research Program on Group Effectiveness, Yale School of Organisation and Management. Hackman, J.R. (1986), ``The psychology of selfmanagement in organizations’’, in Pallack, M.S. and Perloff, R.O. (Eds), Psychology and Work: Productivity, Change and Employment, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G. (1975), ``Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration’’, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, Academic Press, New York, NY. Hare, A.P. (1981), ``Group size’’, American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 695-708. Hemsath, D. and Yerkes, L. (1997), 301 Ways to Have Fun at Work, Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Hunter, D., Bailey, A. and Taylor, B. (1995), The Zen of Groups, Fisher Books, Tucson, AZ. Katzenbach, J.R. (1998), Teams at the Top: Unleashing the Potential of Both Teams and Individual Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organisation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. McFadzean, E.S. (1996), ``New ways of thinking: an evaluation of K-groupware and creative problem solving’’, Doctoral dissertation, Henley Management College/Brunel University, Henley-on-Thames. McFadzean, E.S. (1998a) , ``Enhancing creative thinking within organisations’’, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 309-15. McFadzean, E.S. (1998b) , ``The creativity continuum: towards a classification of creative problem solving techniques’’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 131-9. McFadzean, E.S. (1998c), The Creativity Tool Box: A Practical Guide for Facilitating Creative Problem Solving Sessions, TeamTalk Consulting, Milton Keynes. McFadzean, E.S. (1998d) , ``The attention wheel: how to manage creative teams’’, working paper No. 9823, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames. McFadzean, E.S. (1999), ``Creativity in MS/OR: choosing the appropriate technique’’, Interfaces, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 110-22. McFadzean, E.S. and Nelson, T. (1998), ``Facilitating problem solving groups: a conceptual model’’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 6-13. McFadzean, E.S., Somersall, L. and Coker, A. (1998), ``Creative problem solving using unrelated stimuli’’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 36-50. McFadzean, E.S., Somersall, L. and Coker, A. (1999), ``A framework for facilitating group processes’’, Strategic Change, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 421-31. Margerison, C. and McCann, D. (1990), Team Management, Mercury, London. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), ``A temporally based framework and

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: part 1 ± a conceptual model Management Decision 40/5 [2002] 463±475

taxonomy of team processes’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-76. Miranda, S.M. and Bostrom, R.P. (1997), ``Meeting facilitation: process versus content interventions’’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Vol. 2, pp. 124-33. Nelson, T. and McFadzean, E.S. (1998), ``Facilitating problem solving groups: facilitator competences’’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 72-82. Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R. and George, J.F. (1991), ``Electronic meeting systems to support group work’’, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 40-61. Orive, R. (1988), ``Group consensus, action immediacy, and opinion confidence’’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 14, pp. 573-7. Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K.L. (1990), ``The effects of electronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: an assessment of the empirical research’’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 143-61. Romig, D.A. (1996), Breakthrough Teamwork: Outstanding Results Using Structured Teamwork, Irwin, Chicago, IL.

Schwarz, R.M. (1994), The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Tuckman, B.W. (1965), ``Developmental sequence in small groups’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 384-99. Van de Ven, A. and Delbecq, A.L. (1971), ``Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 203-12. VanGundy, A.B. (1988), Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. Von Oech, R. (1983), A Whack on the Side of the Head, Thorsons, London. Watson, R.T., DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. (1988), ``Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: some intended and unintended consequences’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 463-78. Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelson, L.K. (1993), ``Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 590-602.

[ 475 ]