collaborative problem solving benefits

10 Main Benefits of Collaborative Learning

magine this —  a group of intrepid explorers embarks on a challenging mountain ascent. As they navigate rugged terrain and conquer obstacles together, a profound lesson unfolds — the strength lies not just in individual skills but in the harmonious synergy of collective effort. This adventure mirrors the essence of collaborative learning, where each participant contributes their unique expertise to conquer the peaks of knowledge.

Let's delve deep into the exhilarating journey of why collaboration is important in education, top collaborative learning benefits, and how to achieve real collective triumph through technologies.

What is Collaborative Learning?

Collaborative learning stands as a strategic approach rooted in group dynamics, bringing teams together to achieve a shared objective. A pivotal aspect of collaborative teaching strategy lies in showcasing the positive impact of individual autonomy and the expression of personal abilities while upholding personal responsibility. Within collaborative learning, students engage in joint efforts on tasks or projects.

Crucially, it's worth noting that students collaboratively contribute to a collective goal in this learning style, each tackling a distinct task . The concept hinges on individuals within this environment honing their skills, and witnessing firsthand how their contributions ripple through the group.

Beyond the academic realm, this collaborative synergy extends to the professional sphere, fostering camaraderie and fortifying bonds among teams. It becomes an avenue for individuals to acquaint themselves with their colleagues, gaining insights into both strengths and weaknesses. 

This social interplay not only contributes to skill development but also cultivates essential interpersonal abilities like problem-solving, communication, and collaboration.

10 Benefits of Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning makes the learning process enjoyable but also serves as an effective avenue for skill development. Here are ten key benefits of collaborative learning:

#1. Enhancing Problem-Solving Skills

Collaborative learning projects often require groups to complete a task or solve a problem. Throughout this process, participants encounter a spectrum of potential solutions from individuals with diverse opinions and perspectives. People contribute unique ideas that their teammates might not have considered. Subsequently, the group engages in discussions and analysis to identify the best solution.

💡 Working on a problem or task as a group helps individuals develop their own problem-solving skills and discover new approaches to handling various work situations.

#2. Fostering Social Interaction

Effective collaborative learning groups necessitate teamwork. These groups may include individuals with different personality types. By working together and sharing ideas, participants can practice and enhance social skills such as active listening, empathy, and respect.

💡 Solid social skills contribute to the formation and maintenance of strong personal and professional relationships.

#3. Promoting Diversity

Collaborative learning typically brings together people from diverse backgrounds, beliefs, educational levels, and ages. This diversity can introduce new ideas and perspectives unique to one's culture or education.

💡 As a result, collaborative learning fosters open-mindedness and acceptance in the workplace.

#4. Improving Communication Skills

Collaborative learning relies on effective communication to accomplish a task. Participants use verbal communication skills to share ideas, explain concepts, and provide clear and concise feedback. They also employ written communication skills if the task involves activities like group writing or peer editing.

💡 The more individuals practice communication skills in these environments, the stronger these skills tend to become.

#5. Inspiring Creativity

The amalgamation of different viewpoints and ideas often results in creative solutions in collaborative learning tasks. An individual's idea or suggestion can inspire a new and creative thought from other team members. Collaborative learning nurtures this creative thinking by blending perspectives and personality types.

Imagine yourself in a product designers' brainstorming session at Apple. As the team discusses refining the user interface for a new device, one designer's concept for an intuitive navigation system might ignite a flurry of ideas from others.

💡 This collaborative exchange sparks creative synergies, culminating in the development of an innovative interface that seamlessly integrates user experience with cutting-edge design.

#6. Building Trust

Collaborative learning groups must work together to achieve their goal, relying on each other for success. Consequently, they must learn to trust one another.

💡 This trust can carry over into future interactions in the workplace, potentially leading to increased productivity and morale.

#7. Boosting Confidence

When working in a group, team members support each other as they progress toward a common goal. Collaborative learning can be particularly beneficial for shy, anxious, or introverted individuals. 

💡 A supportive group atmosphere can help them build confidence, encouraging them to share their opinions and contribute to discussions. Consequently, their confidence may grow as they realize their value to the group.

#8. Encouraging Commitment

Successful collaborative learning requires the participation of all participants. It encourages passive individuals to become more involved and active in the project or discussion. 

This type of learning is an effective way to engage quiet or inactive peers, making them more interested and involved in a project.

💡 Engaged individuals in their work are often more productive and have a more positive attitude.

#9. Fostering Enjoyment

Learning in a group is more enjoyable and less tedious than reading training materials, listening to a lecture, or watching an instructional video alone. Many collaborative learning activities include fun tasks such as solving puzzles, role-playing, and games. 

For instance, in a virtual group project where students collaborate on a case study, they engage in lively discussions via video conferencing, share diverse perspectives through online forums, and simulate problem-solving scenarios using interactive tools. During collaborative learning exercises, teams often feel more comfortable, relaxed, and capable of laughing and having fun.

💡 When learning experiences are enjoyable, people are more likely to remember what they learned and look forward to learning more in the future.

#10. Cultivating Critical Thinking Skills

Collaborative learning can encourage participants to think at a higher level. They must analyze and discuss information to make the best decision or solve a problem. By having to explain their ideas and interpret and evaluate others' ideas, individuals can improve their critical thinking skills.

💡 Critical thinking is crucial for conflict resolution, idea generation, and ensuring projects are completed smoothly and efficiently.

Practice that Builds Relationships

Collaborative learning leads to forging new friendships and strengthening existing relationships. It often brings together people who might not have met or worked together under normal circumstances.

As team members spend time working together on a collaborative learning project, they get to know each other better. This can lead to positive personal and professional relationships and higher morale.

Lastly, if a supervisor or teacher participates in or leads the collaborative learning effort, it can help that person better understand their employees and strengthen their professional relationships.

The Role of Technology in Collaborative Learning

Utilizing technology has the potential to significantly enhance the advantages of collaborative learning, providing innovative solutions to connect and involve students in meaningful ways. Digital platforms play a pivotal role in fostering cooperation and engagement within the educational landscape.

▪️ Learning Management Systems

Utilizing learning management systems such as EducateMe , Canvas, Moodle, etc., goes beyond simple collaboration in education; these platforms serve as comprehensive hubs for organizing and delivering educational resources. Moreover, they provide valuable insights into student progress and performance, enabling educators to tailor their teaching methods to address individual needs effectively.

▪️ Collaborative Learning Platforms

Digital platforms such as Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom exemplify the power of real-time collaboration, streamlining the process for students to cooperate seamlessly. Through these platforms, students can effortlessly work together, share resources, and engage in discussions, transcending geographical constraints for a more inclusive learning environment.

▪️ Interactive Learning Tools

Incorporating interactive learning tools like Kahoot, Quizlet, and Padlet introduces an element of gamification into the learning process, transforming education into an interactive and engaging experience. For instance, Kahoot allows educators to create quizzes with competitive elements, fostering a sense of excitement and competition among students, ultimately enhancing their retention of information.

▪️ Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence technologies can be employed to create personalized learning experiences for students even in collaborative learning. AI algorithms can analyze individual learning styles and preferences, tailoring educational content to meet the specific needs of each student. This fosters a more adaptive and inclusive learning environment, where students can progress at their own pace and focus on areas that require additional attention.

▪️ Virtual Reality 

Integrating virtual reality into collaborative learning brings a new dimension to education. Students can engage in immersive experiences, such as virtual group field trips or simulations, fostering a deeper understanding of complex concepts. For example, exploring ancient civilizations through a virtual tour or conducting virtual science experiments enhances the educational journey, making it more captivating and memorable.

Discover more about the best technologies for collaborative learning in our guide “ 10+ Best Collaborative Learning Tools for 2023 ”. 

Final Thought

In the words of Helen Keller, "Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much." The crux of collaborative learning lies in this conviction of the potency of teamwork and collective intelligence.

Collaborative learning presents a multitude of advantages and holds the potential to revolutionize the contemporary education system. Educators can amplify student engagement and improve learning outcomes significantly by implementing technology capabilities.

Here, EducateMe collaborative LMS will be your perfect partner. Discover its collaborative learning capabilities , or simply give it a spin with a free trial version .

How to Train New Employees? Best Practices and Tips

How to Develop a Training Curriculum? (Brief Guide for Trainers)

How to Create A Training Module – Full Guide [2024]

Create and scale collaborative courses

Previous chapter

Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning

Next chapter

Keep reading

20 Best LMS Integrations To Supercharge Your Learning in 2024

Top 12 Canvas LMS Alternatives and Competitors 2024 (For Smooth Learning Provision)

10+ Best eLearning Authoring Tools in 2024

How to ace collaborative problem solving

April 30, 2023 They say two heads are better than one, but is that true when it comes to solving problems in the workplace? To solve any problem—whether personal (eg, deciding where to live), business-related (eg, raising product prices), or societal (eg, reversing the obesity epidemic)—it’s crucial to first define the problem. In a team setting, that translates to establishing a collective understanding of the problem, awareness of context, and alignment of stakeholders. “Both good strategy and good problem solving involve getting clarity about the problem at hand, being able to disaggregate it in some way, and setting priorities,” Rob McLean, McKinsey director emeritus, told McKinsey senior partner Chris Bradley  in an Inside the Strategy Room podcast episode . Check out these insights to uncover how your team can come up with the best solutions for the most complex challenges by adopting a methodical and collaborative approach. 

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

Countering otherness: Fostering integration within teams

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done?

To weather a crisis, build a network of teams

Unleash your team’s full potential

Modern marketing: Six capabilities for multidisciplinary teams

Beyond collaboration overload

MORE FROM MCKINSEY

Take a step Forward

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.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 December 2019

Sharing the same languages helps us work better together

• W. Quin Yow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4066-7200 1 &
• Tony Zhao Ming Lim 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  154 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

29k Accesses

9 Citations

49 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

Collaborative problem-solving, the mutual engagement of people in a coordinated effort to solve a problem together, plays a critical role in the increasingly complex, linguistically diverse, and interconnected world. In particular, being able to communicate in the same languages provides a critical platform for facilitating problem solving among members of a multilingual team. Little research has explored whether sharing the same spoken languages would boost collaborative problem-solving over and beyond the effects of possible confounding variables such as language proficiency, personality, ethnicity, nationality, and non-verbal intelligence. This study manipulated the sharing of same languages by pairing 118 English-speaking bilingual participants either with someone who shares the same two spoken languages as themselves (English- same pair) or with someone who differs in one language (English- different pair). We explored whether such sharing of the same languages enhances collaborative problem-solving in multilingual pairs. Participants completed the Raven’s Matrices individually, as well as an insight problem-solving task (Triangle of Coins task) and a divergent thinking task (Mind-mapping) in pairs. English-same pairs performed better than English-different pairs in the insight problem-solving task but not in the divergent thinking task. English-different pairs collaborated (mean number of turns per minute) and communicated (mean number of utterances) more than English-same pairs in the divergent thinking task, although the effect of pair type on communication was fully mediated by a difference in ethnicity within pairs. More collaboration could have been needed between English-different pairs in the divergent thinking task to achieve comparable performance as English-same pairs, possibly due to the different communication processes experienced by English-different pairs. This study provides insights to the role of sharing spoken languages in enhancing collaborative problem-solving in small multilingual groups.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bilingual disadvantages are systematically compensated by bilingual advantages across tasks and populations

Language combinations of multilinguals are reflected in their first-language knowledge and processing

The potential for effective reasoning guides children’s preference for small group discussion over crowdsourcing

Introduction.

Working in small groups becomes increasingly crucial as problems become more complex. Working collaboratively on problems, or collaborative problem-solving, is defined as the mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve a problem together (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995 ). This is different from cooperative work, or tasks that the labor is divided but then completed individually (Dillenbourg, 1999 ; Roschelle and Teasley, 1995 ). For example, in mathematical problem-solving, if one person does the first subpart and the other does the second subpart, this would be termed as cooperative work. However, if both people work together to solve the problems together, this would be termed as collaborative work. Thus, collaboration requires mutual engagement of the group, where members of the group work together and perform actions toward a common goal (Dillenbourg, 1999 ; Roschelle and Teasley, 1995 ). But successful mutual engagement of the group hinges on the members’ ability to communicate with each other during the problem-solving process. With the rising importance of collaborative problem-solving in multilingual and multicultural work or study teams today, stemmed in part from an increasing majority of the world’s population who speaks two or more languages (Crystal, 1997 ; Ripoll et al., 1995 ; Springer et al., 1999 ; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 ), being able to communicate in the same languages provides a critical platform for facilitating problem solving among these teams. This study aims to explore the effect of similarities in spoken language between members of a team on collaborative problem-solving performance.

Collaborative problem-solving in small groups has shown multiple benefits over working as individuals in problem-solving tasks (e.g., Arterberry et al., 2007 ; Barron, 2000 ; Kwon and Cifuentes, 2009 ; Phelps and Damon, 1989 ). Barron ( 2000 ) showed that students who worked in teams outperformed individuals in problem-solving and planning tasks. Kwon and Cifuentes ( 2009 ) further showed that computer-based concept maps that were collaboratively created by students were more deeply conceptualized than concept maps that were created by individual students. Even 5-year-olds performed better with a partner than when working alone on puzzle problems, especially if they know that their performance would be evaluated (Arterberry et al., 2007 ).

Past studies have examined various factors that could impact collaborative problem-solving in small groups. Webb and colleagues ( 1995 ) showed that providing explanations instead of only the right answer and engaging in constructive activity aided collaborative mathematical learning in self-directed groups. Woolley and colleagues ( 2008 ) showed the importance of having expert members and collaborative planning in small-group collaborative problem-solving (note: engaging only in collaborative planning or having expert members alone did not improve collaborative problem-solving). Having expert members in a team is consistent with the notion that diversity in teams could be beneficial. An early study by Hoffman and Maier ( 1961 ) found that significantly more heterogenous groups (diverse groups that varied in personality and gender) produced high quality solutions compared to homogenous groups (less-diverse groups; 65% vs. 21%). Furthermore, greater diversity in problem-solving styles within teams could improve collaborative problem-solving (Kurtzberg, 2005 ; Thornburg, 1991 ; Villa et al., 1996 ; Woodman et al., 1993 ). For example, graduate and organizational teams consisting of members with both structured and unstructured problem-solving styles were found to have more creative ideas on a collaborative idea generation task than teams that comprised solely members with either structured or unstructured problem-solving styles (Kurtzberg, 2005 ). Similarities among group members could also boost collaborative problem-solving (Canham et al., 2012 ; Curşeu and Pluut, 2013 ; Harrison et al., 2002 ; Staples and Zhao, 2006 ). Harrison and colleagues ( 2002 ) showed more favorable outcomes for work teams who had surface-level and deep-level similarities than those who had not. Interestingly, Curşeu and Plutt ( 2013 ) found that while gender and nationality diversity had positive effects on collaborative learning and problem-solving, variety in teamwork-related expertize had indirect negative effects on the quality of teamwork processes. Thus, past studies demonstrated that the characteristics that the team members shared or did not share with each other can differentially impact on the problem-solving process and performance outcomes.

Another characteristic that plays an important role in collaborative problem-solving is language. The specific role of sharing the same languages on collaborative problem-solving has not been previously studied directly, but past literature suggests that similarities in language between participants can have positive effects on collaborative problem-solving through better quality of communication and affiliation (e.g., McLeod et al., 1996 ). Language provides a medium for communication, sharing of ideas and working on ideas through mutual engagement between small groups and teams (e.g., Baldo et al., 2005 ; Kempert et al., 2011 ; Mercer, 1996 ). Communication has been shown to be critical in collaborative problem-solving processes by facilitating interaction and collaboration among members of the team. Ross and Raphael ( 1990 ) demonstrated that student communication was positively related to performance in collaborative problem-solving, especially when the collaborative processes were structured. Dossick and Neff ( 2011 ) further showed that communication of ideas led to more effective problem-solving among small groups.

Language is also crucial in collaborative problem-solving as it could increase the level of affiliation between members of the team through shared identity, thus making them feel more comfortable with each other and improving the quality of the collaboration (e.g., Noels et al., 1996 ). Shepard ( 1964 ) postulated that similarity aids in developing cohesion among work teams, and cohesion in turn is associated with the success of a group. For example, although ethnically diverse teams had better quality work in a brainstorming task, members of these teams were emotionally closer to members of another team who shared the same language and ethnicity background as themselves (McLeod et al., 1996 ). Relating to the prior work reviewed earlier, having diversity in a team might not benefit collaborative problem-solving if there is reduced cohesiveness. In Curşeu and Plutt’s study ( 2013 ), the diversity in teamwork-related expertise might have caused interpersonal conflict and reduced affiliation, which in turn led to indirect negative effects on team performance. Since past studies suggest that language promotes interaction and bonding between members of a group, sharing the same languages might attenuate any potential conflict felt between members (e.g., expert vs. non-expert members). Particularly in this study, sharing the same spoken languages might facilitate communication and collaboration between members for better problem-solving outcomes, and help remediate against any possible negative effects of existing diversities (e.g., nationality and ethnicity) to create positive outcomes on collaborative problem-solving (e.g., Harrison and Klein, 2007 ; Woolley et al., 2008 ).

In this study, our measurement of both communicative and collaborative processes was obtained through audio recordings, which is consistent with past studies (Edelsky, 1981 ; Harris et al., 2009 ; Harris et al., 2008 ; Kannampallil et al., 2016 ; Rice et al., 2010 ). For example, Harris and colleagues ( 2009 ) used mean number of utterances obtained from audio recordings to represent communication in their study that explored participants’ interactions with single-touch surfaces and multi-touch surfaces, while Edelsky ( 1981 ) defined the mean number of turns per minute obtained from audio recordings as a measure of collaboration between adults. A turn refers to the start of when someone begins talking and ends when someone else takes over. The number of turns per minute has been used in previous studies to measure collaboration (e.g., Edelsky, 1981 ; Isaacs and Tang, 1994 ; Kruger, 1993 ). Thus, we quantified communicative processes as the mean number of utterances per minute and collaboration as the mean number of turns per minute in our study. We also coded for implicit communication processes within each pair, e.g., how much the pairs spoke the same two languages, how similar the pairs were in accent, and how comfortable the pairs appeared to be in their communication with each other (e.g., Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010 ; Paradis, 1998 ).

Language can have a positive effect on problem-solving even when the language status of the participants was not made known explicitly to individual participants (e.g., Bialystok and Majumder, 1998 ; Cushen and Wiley, 2011 ; McLeod et al., 1996 ; Wright and Lander, 2003 ). Cushen and Wiley ( 2011 ) showed that bilinguals did better than monolinguals in an insight problem-solving task when the language status of the participants was not made known explicitly. Similarly, Bialystok and Majumder ( 1998 ) found that balanced bilinguals (bilinguals that were equally proficient in both languages) showed better performance in linguistic and non-linguistic tasks than partial bilinguals and monolinguals in a group of Grade 3 students. The language status of the participants was also not made known to the group. In this study, we extend this by exploring the effect of sharing the same languages in bilingual pairs when the language status is not made known to the participants in the pair. To help isolate the effects of sharing the same languages on the performance in the collaborative problem-solving tasks, we randomly paired English-speaking bilingual participants into two conditions (namely, English- same language pairs or English- different language pairs) so that other existing variables such as ethnicity, gender and personality would be randomly distributed across the two conditions. English-same language pairs referred to English-speaking pairs who shared the same second language, and English-different language pairs referred to English-speaking pairs who spoke English and a different second language. We also noted that explicitly revealing the language status of the participants might lead to participants second-guessing the aims of the study and changing the way they behave to fit what they believe is the purpose of the study.

In addition to random sampling and random assignment, the effects of other existing variables would also need to be explored. Firstly, as the study is carried out in English, the differences in English spoken proficiency between team members could affect their performance in terms of how well they understood the task and how well they could express their ideas and communicate with each other. Differences in English spoken proficiency has been shown to affect collaborative efforts in studies where English was used (e.g., Neeley et al., 2009 ). Secondly, personality could also play a role in affecting how conscientious participants are in completing the task, how agreeable they are with each other, how open they are to novel ideas, how much they interact with each other and how much positivism they bring to the task. Personality has been shown to be associated with collaborative problem solving (e.g., Halfhill et al., 2005 ; Kickul and Neuman, 2000 ; Maltzman et al., 1956 ). Kickul and Neuman ( 2000 ) found that conscientiousness and cognitive ability were associated with team performance among undergraduate students in mixed gender teams. Halfhill and colleagues ( 2005 ) further showed that agreeableness, emotional stability and helpfulness had positive effects in collaborative work environments. The same study (Halfhill et al., 2005 ) also found that the more heterogenous the group was on personality traits, the more problem-solving performance would decrease. Thirdly, the nationality and ethnicity of the participants could also play a role in collaborative problem-solving. Participants with the same ethnicity and nationality might feel more comfortable with each other leading to better collaboration in the problem-solving tasks. However, differing effects of diverse ethnicities and nationalities on collaborative work teams were found in previous studies (e.g., McLeod et al., 1996 ; Terenzini et al., 2001 ; Wright and Lander, 2003 ). McLeod and colleagues ( 1996 ) discovered that work teams with medium ethnic diversity did significantly better than work teams with no ethnic diversity. But Wright and Lander ( 2003 ) found that teams with nationality diversity were more inhibited in terms of their verbal participation when collaborating on problem-solving tasks than teams with no nationality diversity, which leads to worse outcomes in these mixed teams. Lastly, the level of individual non-verbal intelligence could affect how fast the participants complete the insight problem-solving task, as well as the number of novel ideas they can come up with in the divergent thinking task. Higher non-verbal intelligence was shown to result in better problem-solving in past literature (e.g., Hayslip and Sterns, 1979 ; Resnick and Glaser, 1976 ). Hayship and Sterns ( 1979 ) found that fluid intelligence was related to problem-solving involving abstract stimuli. Thus, these five extraneous variables, spoken English proficiency, personality, nationality, ethnicity, and non-verbal intelligence were also examined in this study.

For this study, two types of collaborative problem-solving tasks were selected—a collaborative insight problem-solving task and a collaborative divergent thinking task. These tasks required different levels of collaboration between participants (see also Nelson, 1999 , for a discussion on problem-based vs. cooperative-based tasks, and Care et al., 2015 , on content-free vs. content-dependent tasks). A Triangle of Coins Task was chosen as the insight problem-solving task and a mind-mapping task was chosen as the divergent thinking task. The Triangle of Coins task requires participants to flip a triangle of ten coins around by moving only three coins. The dependent variable is the time taken to complete the task. The task requires a low level of collaboration between participants as the answer could be derived through individual processes like personal insight. The mind-mapping task requires participants to brainstorm and generate as many ideas as possible on a given problem. The dependent variable is the number of novel and unique ideas that are produced by the participants (Srivathsavai et al., 2010 ). This task requires a high level of collaboration between participants to come up with as many novel solutions as possible. Exploring the effects of sharing the same languages on both of these tasks will allow for greater insights into tasks that require differing levels of collaboration. As described earlier, we also explored the level of communication and collaboration that is carried out during these tasks as measured by the number of utterances and number of turns as exhibited by the participants respectively.

In sum, we hypothesized that bilingual participants who share the same two languages would overall perform better in collaborative problem-solving tasks than those who do not, taking into account the differing communicative and collaborative processes between pairs of participants, over and beyond the effects of language proficiency, personality, ethnicity, nationality, and non-verbal intelligence.

The study received approval and was conducted in compliance with the ethical guidelines prescribed by the author’s university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). All participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation.

Participants

One hundred and eighteen healthy bilingual undergraduate students (68 males, M age in years  = 22.22, SD  = 1.92, range = 18 to 28) were recruited from a local university. Participants had to fulfill the following inclusion criteria: (1) be 18 years old and above; (2) speak English and another language, (3) and have normal or corrected-to normal vision with no color blindness.

Participants provided information on their parents’ highest educational level (1 = None; 2 = Primary School; 3 = Secondary School; 4 = Junior College; 5 = Some University, not completed; 6 = University Degree; 7 = Postgraduate Degree ; father: M  = 4.90; SD  = 1.51; mother: M  = 4.64; SD  = 1.53), household monthly income (1 = S$0 to S$1000; 2 = S$1001 to S$2000; 3 = S$2001 to S$3000; 4 = S$3001 to S$4000; 5 = S$4001 to S$5000; 6 = S$5001 to S$6000; 7 = S$6001 to S$7000; 8 = S$7001 to S$8000; 9 = S$8001 to S$9000; 10 = S$9001 and above ; M  = 5.77 ; SD  = 3.36), ethnicity (Chinese, Malay, Indian, or Others) and nationality (native or non-native). Of the 118 participants, 98 were Chinese, 3 were Malay, 6 were Indian, and 11 were Others. Sixty-nine of the participants were native citizens and 49 were non-native citizens.

Participants provided information on their language status (refer to section on Language background questionnaire ), including their language proficiency. All participants were proficient in English. Bilingual participants were randomly paired up into same or different language pairs based on the second language (other than English) they were proficient in. English- same language pairs consisted of English-speaking participants who shared the same second language (e.g., English and Mandarin). English- different language pairs were participants who shared one language (i.e., English) but differed in their second language (e.g., Mandarin vs. Malay). In total, there were 31 English-same language pairs (all pairs spoke English-Mandarin) and 28 English-different language pairs (see Table 1 for the breakdown of languages spoken by different language pairs). In addition, all pairs were of the same gender as past literature found that teams made up of mixed gender performed worse in collaborative problem-solving tasks (Strough et al., 2001 ; Webb, 1984 ), where females in these mixed teams were shown to perform worse than males on the collaborative problem-solving tasks. In total, there were 34 male language pairs (20 English-same language pairs and 14 English-different language pairs) and 25 female language pairs (11 English-same language pairs, 14 English-different language pairs).

Background variables

Language background questionnaire : Participants completed a language background questionnaire that contained items on demographics (such as age, gender, nationality and ethnicity) and items to derive participants’ individual language background (e.g., languages known, proficiency of each language). To gauge language proficiency, we asked participants to name each of the languages they knew and rate how proficient they were in speaking each language, on a ten-point scale (from 1 = not proficient, to 10 = very proficient). Proficiency in speaking English was used as a measure of language proficiency in this study due to the nature of the study where participants would collaborate with their partner to perform the required tasks mostly through speaking English with each other.

For demographic variables, to control for potential differences in ethnicity and nationality, we coded the difference in ethnicity of participants within pairs (Same Ethnicity: 0 = if participants in pair share the same ethnicity; 1 = if participants in pair are of different ethnicity) and the difference in nationality of participants within pairs (Same Nationality: 0 = participants in pair share the same nationality; 1 = participants in pair are of different nationality).

Big five inventory : Participants were given the Big Five Inventory (John and Srivastava, 1999 ) as a measure of personality traits. The Big Five Inventory consists of 44 items on five personality traits: Openness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Participants rated themselves based on how much the characteristics as described in the items apply to themselves from a scale of 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Examples of these items include “can be tense” and “is outgoing, sociable”. The Big Five Inventory has shown good reliability and validity in the literature with a reported coefficient alpha reliability of about 0.80 for all its dimensions (Li et al., 2015 ). The difference in each of the five personality traits within pairs (e.g., Same Openness: difference in rating scores in Openness between first and second participant) was derived.

Raven’s progressive matrices : We used the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven et al., 2004 ) as a measure of non-verbal fluid intelligence. In this task, participants are required to choose one out of six figures that completes a pattern. The Raven’s Progressive Matrices Task was administered using a laptop PC. Visual stimuli were presented to participants from a distance of about 70 cm via a 20-inch monitor with a refresh rate of about 60 Hz. Instructions for the computerized tasks were presented on screen in English. A standard QWERTY keyboard was used to respond to the tasks. Participants were instructed to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible. Participants pressed the number key on the keyboard that corresponded with their selection. There was a total of 36 items and participants were given 10 minutes to attempt as many as they could. The dependent variable (DV) in this task is the number of correct items completed within 10 minutes. Similarly, the difference in this DV within pairs (i.e., Same Non-verbal intelligence) was calculated.

Collaborative problem-solving tasks

Triangle of Coins task (insight problem-solving) : We used the Triangle of Coins as the collaborative insight problem-solving task. Participants were asked to work together in pairs on the Triangle of Coins puzzle where they needed to flip a triangle of ten coins around by moving only three coins. Pairs who had prior knowledge of the Triangle of Coins puzzle were asked to complete an equivalent Matchstick task instead, where they would need to make seven squares by moving only two matchsticks based on a given array of matchsticks. The dependent variable of the collaborative insight problem-solving is the time taken for each pair of participants to complete the task (in seconds). Fifty-one pairs completed the coin task and 8 pairs completed the matchstick task. There was no significant difference in the time taken to complete the coin or matchstick task ( t (116) = 0.56, p  = 0.58, η 2  = 0.002). Therefore, these tasks could be conceived as tasks of equivalent difficulty.

Mind-mapping task (divergent thinking task) : The mind-mapping task was used to measure the divergent thinking between pairs of participants. Both participants first watched a video that provided the basic principles of mind-mapping (SUTD-MIT International Design Centre, 2015 ). Next, they were asked to brainstorm ideas on a given problem (i.e., how to keep insects out of the house) and work collaboratively to come up with a mind-map of solutions. Divergent thinking is measured as the number of novel and unique ideas that are produced by the participants. The complexity of the mind-maps was taken into account as the ideas were first grouped into similar themes before selecting the ideas that represented novel and unique constructs so that ideas that represented the same themes were not double-counted. One coder who spoke English as his first language (Coder A) coded all 59 mind-maps for the number of novel ideas produced by the participants. A second coder (Coder B) who similarly spoke English as his first language randomly chose half of the mind-maps (30 mind-maps) and coded the mind-maps in the same way for the number of novel ideas produced by participants. Split-half inter-rater reliability test showed significant intra-class correlations for the number of novel ideas generated in the divergent thinking task ( ICC (3, 2) = 0.94, p  < 0.001). Thus, there was a significant agreement (94%) between the two coders on the number of novel ideas generated for the mind-maps.

Audio recordings : Audio recordings were taken of the conversations within the pairs during the insight problem-solving and the divergent thinking tasks. Of all the 59 sets of audio recordings, 56 sets of audio recordings (3 corrupted files) were coded by Coder A for the number of utterances and the number of turns. Coder B randomly chose half of the recordings (28 recordings) and similarly coded the recordings. Mean number of utterances per minute (as a measure of communication) and mean number of turns per minute (as a measure of collaboration) were then calculated. Split-half inter-rater reliability test showed significant intra-class correlations for the mean number of utterances per minute in the insight problem-solving task and the divergent thinking task ( ICC (3, 2) = 0.97, p  < 0.001 and ICC (3, 2) = 0.81, p  < 0.001, respectively), and the mean number of turns per minute in the insight problem-solving task and divergent thinking task ( ICC (3, 2) = 0.95, p  < 0.001 and ICC (3, 2) = 0.76, p  < 0.001, respectively). The coders had significant agreement (76 to 97%) on the number of utterances and turns made between the same language and different language pairs.

Unidentified copies of the audio recordings were further rated by an independent blind coder who spoke English as his first language to explore the implicit communication between pairs of participants during the tasks, such as “How similar were participants in accent?” and “How comfortable were the participants with each other?” from a scale of 1–10, and “Did participants sound like they speak the same two languages?” (0–“no”, 1–“yes”) (e.g., Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010 ; Paradis, 1998 ). A second independent blind coder who also spoke English as his first language coded 50% of the data. Split-half inter-rater reliability test revealed significant intra-class correlations ( ICC (3, 2) > 0.62, all ps  < 0.001): the coders had significant agreement (above 62%) for the implicit communication variables coded.

All tasks were administered individually in a quiet room. Participants completed the background language questionnaire and were paired into same or different language pairs based on the languages they spoke. Participants then completed the Raven’s Progressive Matrices Task individually and the Triangle of Coins or Matchstick Task and the Mind-mapping task in pairs. We audiotaped conversations between the participants while they completed the two collaborative tasks. The order of the three tasks was counterbalanced across participants. The entire session took about one hour.

There were no significant differences found between male and female pairs in performance, communication, and collaboration on the insight problem-solving task and the divergent thinking task (all p s > 0.10; η 2  < 0.28), so we collapsed the data across gender. One-way ANOVAs were performed on the pairs’ differences in English spoken proficiency, nationality, ethnicity, big-five personality factors, and non-verbal intelligence across pair type (same or different language). The significant variables were then subsequently controlled for (see Table 2 ).

English-same language pairs were found to be more homogeneous in self-reported English spoken proficiency ( F (1, 112) = 6.93, p  = 0.01, η 2  = 0.06), ethnicity ( F (1, 116) = 70.33, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.38) and agreeableness ( F (1, 110) = 4.48, p  = 0.04, η 2  = 0.04) than English-different language pairs. No other significant differences were found. No multicollinearity was found between pair type and the three variables ( rs  < 0.62; all VIFs = 1.00). The three variables were controlled for in subsequent analysis.

Overall task performance

Pair type and insight problem-solving task.

Hierarchical multiple regressions were carried out to explore the unique effects of pair type on the time taken to solve the insight problem-solving task. The three variables, within-pair differences in English spoken proficiency, ethnicity of participants and agreeableness, were entered as Step 1 of the hierarchical multiple regression. Pair type (0 = English-same language pairs; 1 = English-different language pairs) was entered as Step 2 of the hierarchical multiple regression (see Table 3 ).

The four predictors accounted for 8.2% of the variance (Adjusted R 2  = 0.05) of the time taken to complete the insight problem-solving task. The model and the R 2 change were marginally statistically significant ( F (4, 103) = 2.30, p  = 0.06). Pair type was a significant predictor of the insight problem-solving task, β  = 0.35, t (103) = 2.90, p  = 0.005. English-same language pairs ( M  = 87.48 s, SD  = 88.84 s) were faster than English-different language pairs ( M  = 158.21 s, SD  = 159.31 s) in completing the insight problem-solving task. All other variables were not found to be significantly associated with the time taken to complete the insight problem-solving task.

Pair type and divergent thinking task

Similar hierarchical multiple regressions were carried out to explore the unique effects of pair type on the total number of ideas generated on the divergent thinking task while the variables of differences in English spoken proficiency, ethnicity, and agreeableness of participants within pairs were controlled for.

Overall, the four predictors accounted for 11.9% of the variance (Adjusted R 2  = 0.09) in the total number of ideas generated on the divergent thinking task. The model was statistically significant, F (4, 103) = 3.49, p  = 0.01. Pair type did not predict the total number of ideas generated on the divergent thinking task, β  = −0.19, t (103) = −1.59, p  = 0.12. Differences in agreeableness within pairs significantly predicted the total number of ideas generated ( β  = 0.32, t (103) = 3.39, p  = 0.001). All the other variables were not significantly associated with the total number of ideas generated in the divergent thinking task.

Communication and collaboration

Communication amongst pairs was measured as the mean number of utterances per minute while collaboration was measured as the mean number of turns per minute within each pair. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the level of communication and collaboration in English-same and different language pairs.

Communication and collaboration : Similar hierarchical multiple regressions were carried out to explore the unique effects of pair type on the level of communication and the level of collaboration separately in the insight problem-solving task while controlling for the differences in English spoken proficiency, ethnicity of participants, and agreeableness within pairs. The models were not statistically significant, Fs  > 0.38, ps  > 0.56. Pair type was not shown to predict communication or collaboration in the insight problem-solving task ( βs  < −0.16, ps  > 0.24). No other significant effects were found ( p s > 0.20).

Communication : Hierarchical multiple regressions with the same control and independent variables were carried out to explore the unique effects of pair type on the level of communication in the divergent thinking task while controlling for the same three variables as above (see Table 5 ).

Overall, the four predictors accounted for 20.7% of the variance (Adjusted R 2  = 0.17) in the communication within pairs during the divergent thinking task. The model was found to be statistically significant ( F (4, 97) = 6.32, p  < 0.001). Pair type was not found to be a significant predictor of the level of communication in the divergent thinking task, β  = 0.11, t (97) = 0.91, p  = 0.37. However, the smaller the difference in English spoken proficiency, the more participants communicated within pairs in the divergent thinking task after pair type was added ( β  = −0.27, t (97) = −2.87, p  = 0.005). Conversely, the pairs who were different in ethnicity communicated more within pairs in the divergent thinking task after pair type was added ( β  = 0.37, t (97) = 3.07, p  = 0.003).

Further analyses on possible mediation effects found that the baseline relationship between pair type and the level of communication in the divergent thinking task was significant ( F (1, 110) = 12.67, β  = 0.32, t (110) = 3.56 , p  = 0.001). Pair type was also found to be significantly associated with differences in ethnicity within pairs ( F (1, 116) = 70.33, β  = 0.61, t (116) = 8.39 , p  < 0.001). Pairs with different ethnicities were found to communicate significantly more than similar pairs in the divergent thinking task ( β  = 0.26, t (109) = 2.20, p  = 0.03). Pair type and differences in ethnicity within pairs were found to jointly predict communication within pairs in the divergent thinking task ( F (2, 109) = 8.98, p  < 0.001), but pair type was no longer significantly associated with communication in the divergent thinking task ( β  = 0.15, t (109) = 1.32, p  = 0.19) (refer to Fig. 1 ). Sobel tests revealed that the indirect effect was significant ( z  = 2.14, SE = 0.63, p  = 0.03). Difference in ethnicity within pairs was found to fully account for the relationship between pair type and communication in the divergent thinking task. No other significant effects were found.

Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between pair type and communication in the divergent thinking task as mediated by difference in ethnicity. The standardized regression coefficient between pair type and communication, controlling for ethnicity, is in parentheses. * p  < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01, *** p  < 0.001.

Collaboration : The same hierarchical multiple regressions were carried out to explore the unique effects of pair type on the level of collaboration in the divergent thinking task (see Table 6 ). Holistically, the four predictors accounted for 24.7% of the variance (Adjusted R 2  = 0.22) in the mean number of turns per minute in the divergent thinking task. The model was statistically significant ( F (4, 97) = 7.95, p  < 0.001). Pair type was significant: English-different language pairs collaborated significantly more than English-same language pairs in the divergent thinking task, after taking into account the other three variables, β  = 0.29, t (97) = 2.47, p  = 0.02. Participants with smaller differences in English spoken proficiency within pairs were found to collaborate more in the divergent thinking task after pair type was added ( β  = −0.31, t (97) = −3.36, p  = 0.001). Participants with greater differences in ethnicity within pairs were found to collaborate more in the divergent thinking task after pair type was added ( β  = 0.25, t (97) = 2.13, p  = 0.04). No significant mediation effects were found.

Additional analysis on implicit communication

Additional analyses on the implicit communication between the pairs were conducted based on the coding of the audio recordings (see Table 7 ). One-way ANOVAs revealed that English-same language pairs were more similar in accent and sounded more like they spoke the same two languages than English-different language pairs in both the insight problem-solving task ( F (1, 94) = 11.30, p  = 0.001, η 2  = 0.11, and F (1, 94) = 5.47, p  = 0.022, η 2  = 0.06, respectively) and the divergent thinking task ( F (1, 94) = 17.78, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.16, and F (1, 94) = 542.43, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.31, respectively). This suggests that English-same language pairs might have experienced better quality communicative processes than English-different language pairs via implicit understanding of a common accent and language background.

This study explored whether sharing the same two spoken languages would result in better performance in collaborative problem-solving tasks among bilingual adults than those who did not share the same languages. Our results suggest that sharing the same two spoken languages did enrich collaborative problem-solving in the insight problem-solving task, though these effects were not seen in the divergent thinking task. Communication and collaboration were explored as possible processes through which sharing the same languages would affect problem-solving in small groups. English-different language pairs collaborated more than English-same language pairs in the divergent thinking task. English-different language pairs also communicated more than English-same language pairs, though this was fully accounted for by a bigger difference in ethnicity within pairs. Independent coders determined that English-same language pairs indeed sounded more similar in accent and exhibited more similarities in language characteristics than English-different language pairs in both collaborative problem-solving tasks.

Our results indicated a greater amount of collaboration between English-different language pairs than English-same language pairs in the divergent thinking task although both pair types performed similarly in the task. We speculated that this additional collaboration might be needed by English-different language pairs to reach a comparable level of performance as English-same language pairs in the task. In particular, a divergent thinking task is expected to require a higher level of collaboration as participants are inclined to discuss and work together to find novel solutions compared to an insight problem-solving task. Perhaps not sharing the same two languages in a way “hindered” (or did not facilitate) the collaborative process, as English-different language pairs needed to take more turns per minute to share or clarify their ideas. Additional post-hoc analysis of the audio recordings revealed that two of the English-same language pairs (6.45%) and six of the English-same language pairs (19.35%) used both languages spontaneously with each other in the insight problem-solving task and divergent thinking task, respectively (note that participants were not explicitly told that their partner in the task shared or did not share the same second language as them). Interestingly, for three of the English-different language pairs (10.7%; one pair in insight problem-solving task and two pairs in divergent thinking task), one partner used another language with the other partner but stopped and switched back to English when they realized they did not get a clear response from their partner.

In comparison, in the insight problem-solving task, the positive effects of sharing the same two spoken languages became evident as the English-same language pairs and English-different language pairs collaborated at equivalent levels but the English-same language pairs were more “efficient” in the collaboration process, thereby achieving similar shared mental models to solve the problem faster together than the English-different language pairs (Klimoski and Mohammed, 1994 ). Although we followed the procedure described in past studies to code for communication and collaboration (e.g., Edelsky, 1981 ; Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010 ; Isaacs and Tang, 1994 ; Kruger, 1993 ; Paradis, 1998 ), we noted that there could be further insights to the quality of the turns (such as constructive vs. disruptive turns), and by using other sources of data such as gestures and facial expressions. However, due to the limitation of our audio recordings, we were not able to further code for the quality of these turns. Future studies should consider using a richer platform to record the interactions between participants and code for a deeper level of interaction quality. Nevertheless, our results provided initial support to the hypothesis that sharing the same spoken languages could enhance problem-solving in small groups through better communicative and collaborative processes.

One could argue that the positive effect of sharing same languages on collaborative problem-solving did not stem from better communicative processes. Rather, it was the self-categorization effect that made the English-same language pairs feel closer and as part of a larger social group compared to the English-different language pairs (Turner, 1985 ; Turner et al., 1987 ). Self-categorization theory predicts that similar physical stimuli (e.g., accent or ethnicity) could accentuate the feeling of belongingness to the same social group. Indeed, ethnicity provides visual cues to the extent of similarity (Rakić et al., 2011 ), and accent provides linguistic cues to social identities (Dragojevic and Giles, 2014 ). People who share the same languages tend to possess similar attributes such as accent, and have a strong likelihood that they share the same culture, ethnicity, and language environment (e.g., Jiang, 2000 ; Phinney et al., 2001 ; see Giles and Billings, 2004 for a review of how adults perceived others as having different personalities and physical appearances when the others speak a different accent than oneself). Transcription of the conversations between participants in our study revealed that the English-same language pairs were perceived to share more similar accents and language background than the English-different language pairs. This suggests that there are subtle cues that participants express and/or are picked up during the communicative and collaborative process that inform them about their partners’ linguistic characteristics and language background. The self-categorization theory would argue that it is similarity in such characteristics that would in turn lead to greater affinity and affiliation toward the familiar-speaking other and facilitate the collaborative process.

The above argument has its roots from the notion that people naturally form social categories to help them understand and reason about others in the complex social world. Past studies that examine the various factors of similarity or diversity between group members on performance in problem-solving tasks suggest that the extent of saliency (in similarity or diversity) could enhance or undermine collaborative problem-solving. Past studies also showed that ingroup members tend to be more biased in resource distribution and empathic toward their own members than outgroup members (Allport, 1954 ; Tajfel et al., 1971 ; Xu et al., 2009 ). Language (and how it is spoken) is a rich source of information about the speaker’s origins, group membership, social significance, and even social power (e.g., Fiske and Neuberg, 2013 ; Liberman et al., 2017 ; Fiske and Neuberg, 2013 ). Indeed, developmental literature has extensively demonstrated that sharing the same language and accent is a strong marker for people to relate well and affiliate with the other. Children tend to like, imitate, and learn from those who share the same native language or accent than those who do not (e.g., Akhtar et al., 2012 ; Kinzler et al., 2011 ; Kinzler et al., 2009 ). Thus, the explicit and implicit differences between people in a group, such as a common spoken language, accent, and ethnicity, could conjure up perceptions and expectations of social group membership that can influence the outcome of the various types of collaborative problem-solving tasks. Nonetheless, as this study was not designed to determine the exact mechanism through which sharing language has a positive effect on the collaborative problem-solving process, future studies should explore the possible underlying mechanism further (e.g., affiliation vs. efficiency of communication and collaboration). For example, participants’ subjective perception of their team members in terms of affiliation, comfort, and ease of communication can be obtained and analyzed with objective measures of communication and collaboration, as well as with task performance outcomes.

One related question to ask is whether it is possible that the positive effects of speaking the same two languages in the collaborative problem-solving tasks were due to the English-same pairs speaking English as their first language and the English-different pairs speaking English as their second language. Individuals who speak English as their first language would likely share a more similar accent than those who speak English as a second language. As laid out earlier, such differences in accent between individuals could affect trust, feelings of affiliation and membership between them. Our independent coders did find that English-same language pairs sounded more similar in accent than English-different language pairs in both collaborative problem-solving tasks. In our study, there were 13 English-same pairs (out of 31) and 10 English-different pairs (out of 28) who spoke English as their first language. Chi-square test suggested that this distribution was not statistically significant ( X 2 (2, N  = 59) = 0.24, p  = 0.62). The number of pairs who spoke English as their first language in the English-same condition did not differ significantly from the number of pairs who spoke English as their first language in the English-different condition. Furthermore, it was found that pairs who spoke English as their first language did not differ significantly in performance from pairs who did not speak English as their first language in the insight problem solving task ( F (1, 57) = 0.001, p  = 0.97, η 2  = 0.00), the divergent thinking task ( F (1, 57) = 3.77, p  = 0.06, η 2  = 0.06), communication and collaboration on the insight problem-solving task ( F (1, 54) = 0.40, p  = 0.53, η 2  = 0.01, and F (1, 54) = 0.17, p  = 0.68, η 2  = 0.003, respectively), and communication and collaboration on the divergent thinking task ( F (1, 54) = 0.94, p  = 0.34, η 2  = 0.02, and F (1, 54) = 1.00, p  = 0.32, η 2  = 0.02, respectively). Thus, it is unlikely that the effects found in our study were explained by participants speaking English as their first language (or not) within their pairs. However, we noted the small sample size of pairs who spoke English as their first language, and we should exercise caution in making comparative conclusions at this point. Sharing the same first language remains an important factor, and future studies should control for this when examining the effects of sharing the same languages on collaborative problem-solving tasks.

In this study, we used two types of collaborative problem-solving tasks that required different levels of collaboration between pairs of participants—an insight problem-solving task (Triangle of Coins) and a divergent thinking task (Mind-mapping). Our results indicated that when the performance of a task would benefit from high levels of collaboration, such as the divergent thinking task (since idea generation via brain-storming discussions is the key performance outcome), the English-different language pairs took more turns in their interaction with each other than the English-same language pairs. When the performance of a task does not rely on high levels of collaboration, such as the insight problem-solving task, both pair types were similar in their turn-taking patterns. However collaborative problem solving is more than what these two types of task can measure. Hesse et al. ( 2015 ) suggested that collaborative problem solving can involve many sub-skills, such as social process skills, perspective taking skills, social regulation skills, cognitive process skills, etc. Different problem-solving tasks require different levels of coordinated effort by group members at the same time (e.g., Diehl and Stroebe, 1987 ; Karau and Williams, 1993 ; Stasser and Titus, 1985 ). Thus, future studies should consider exploring the effect of sharing the same languages on different types of collaborative problem-solving tasks that involve different types of sub-skills.

An important caveat for this study was the role of ethnicity in understanding the effects of sharing same languages on collaborative problem-solving tasks. In this study, all the English-same language pairs shared the same ethnicity compared to only half of the English-different language pairs (15 out of 28 pairs were of different ethnicity). The literature provides mixed results on the effects of sharing the same ethnicity on collaborative problem-solving. Sharing the same ethnicity might increase the comfort felt by participants in completing the task (McLeod et al., 1996 ; Terenzini et al., 2001 ; Wright and Lander, 2003 ). However, the same studies also showed that diversity rather than similarity, particularly in ethnicity, has positive effects on collaborative problem-solving tasks. In our study, pairs with different ethnicities were shown to communicate and collaborate more on the divergent thinking task than pairs with the same ethnicities, though direct effects of ethnicity on the insight problem solving task and divergent thinking task were not found. We acknowledge the difficulty of disentangling the effects of ethnicity in this study from sharing same languages as the effect of ethnicity could be due to similarities in appearance, accent, or language as well. Thus, we have tried to statistically control for it in our analysis: English-same language pairs were found to do better in an insight problem-solving task than English-different language pairs after the difference in ethnicity within pairs and other factors were controlled for. Nonetheless, further work should try to tease these factors apart in order to have a better understanding of the effects of ethnicity and shared language on collaborative problem-solving.

Collaborative problem-solving has been found to be crucial in today’s society with highly complex problems. Our study suggested that sharing the same languages could provide an additional pathway to boost collaborative problem-solving. Specifically, sharing the same languages could enhance performance in both collaborative insight problem-solving and divergent thinking tasks in multilingual teams potentially through better and more efficient communicative and collaborative processes. It is also possible that a greater affinity and affiliation toward the familiar-speaking other facilitated the collaborative process via factors such as accent and ethnicity. However, given the complexity of collaborative problem-solving in a variety of contexts, our study represents just a first step in this work. More studies are required to provide further insights on the facilitative and inhibitory effects of sharing same languages and other factors in collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during this study are not publicly available due confidentiality reasons but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Akhtar N, Menjivar J, Hoicka E, Sabbagh MA (2012) Learning foreign labels from a foreign speaker: the role of (limited) exposure to a second language. J Child Lang 39:1135–1149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000911000481

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Allport G (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison Wesley, Reading

Google Scholar  

Arterberry ME, Cain KM, Chopko SA (2007) Collaborative problem-solving in five-year-old children: evidence of social facilitation and social loafing. Educ Psychol 27(5):577–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701308755

Article   Google Scholar  

Baldo JV, Dronkers NF, Wilkins D, Ludy C, Raskin P, Kim J (2005) Is problem-solving dependent on language? Brain Lang 92(3):240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.103

Barron B (2000) Problem-solving in video-based microworlds: collaborative and individual outcomes of high-achieving sixth-grade students. J Educ Psychol 92(2):391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.391

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bialystok E, Majumder S (1998) The relationship between bilingualism and the development of cognitive processes in problem solving. Appl Psycholinguist 19(1):69–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010584

Canham MS, Wiley J, Mayer RE (2012) When diversity in training improves dyadic problem solving. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(3):421–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1844

Care E, Griffin P, Scoular C, Awwal N, Zoanetti N (2015) Collaborative problem solving tasks. In: Griffin P, Care E (eds) Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Educational assessment in an information age. Springer, Dordrecht

Crystal D (1997) English as a global language. Cambridge University Press, New York

Curşeu PL, Pluut H (2013) Student groups as learning entities: the effect of group diversity and teamwork quality on groups' cognitive complexity. Stud High Educ 38(1):87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.565122

Cushen PJ, Wiley J (2011) Aha! Voila! Eureka! Bilingualism and insightful problem solving. Learn Individ Differences 21(4):458–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.007

Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Personal Soc Psychol 53(3):497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497

Dillenbourg P (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? Cogn Computat Approach 1:1–15

Dossick CS, Neff G (2011) Messy talk and clean technology: communication, problem-solving and collaboration using building information modelling. Eng Proj Organ J 1(2):83–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2011.569929

Dragojevic M, Giles H (2014) Language and interpersonal communication: their intergroup dynamics. In: Berger CR (ed) Handbook of interpersonal communication. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, p 29–51

Edelsky C (1981) Who’s got the floor? Lang Soc 10(03):383–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450000885X

Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (2013) Category-based and individuating processes as a function of information and motivation: evidence from our lab. In: Bar-Tal D et al. (eds) Sterotyping and prejudice: changing conceptions. Springer Science Press, p 83–104

Giles H, Billings AC (2004) Assessing language attitudes: speaker evaluation studies. In: Davies A, Elder C (eds) The handbook of applied linguistics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, p 187–209

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gluszek A, Dovidio JF (2010) The way they speak: a social psychological perspective on the stigma of nonnative accents in communication. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 14(2):214–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309359288

Halfhill T, Sundstrom E, Lahner J, Calderone W, Nielsen TM (2005) Group personality composition and group effectiveness an integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Res 36(1):83–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404268538

Harris A, Rick J, Bonnett V, Yuill N, Fleck R, Marshall P, Rogers Y (2009) Around the table: are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children’s collaborative interactions? In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning. Vol. 1. International Society of the Learning Sciences, p 335–344

Harris A, Yuill N, Luckin R (2008) The influence of context‐specific and dispositional achievement goals on children’s paired collaborative interaction. Br J Educ Psychol 78(3):355–374. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X267067

Harrison DA, Klein KJ (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096

Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad Manag J 45(5):1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069328

Hayslip B, Sterns HL (1979) Age differences in relationships between crystallized and fluid intelligences and problem-solving. J Gerontol 34(3):404–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/34.3.404

Hesse F, Care E, Buder J, Sassenberg K, Griffin P (2015) A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In: Griffin P, Care E (eds) Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Educational Assessment in an information age. Springer, Dordrecht

Hoffman LR, Maier NRF (1961) Quality and acceptance of problem solving by members of homogenous and heterogenous groups. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 62:401–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044025

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Isaacs EA, Tang JC (1994) What video can and cannot do for collaboration: a case study. Multimed Syst 2(2):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01274181

Jiang W (2000) The relationship between culture and language. ELT J 54(4):328–334. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.4.328

John OP, Srivastava S (1999) The Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin LA, John OP (eds) Handbook of personality: theory and research. Vol. 2 Guilford Press, New York, p 102–138

Kannampallil TG, Morrow, DG, Fu WT, Raquel, L, Muriset A (2016) Communication patterns in a collaborative medication scheduling task among older adults. In: Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), 2016 IEEE International Conference on IEEE. IEEE, p 367–374

Karau SJ, Williams KD (1993) Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. J Personal Soc Psychol 65(4):681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Kempert S, Saalbach H, Hardy I (2011) Cognitive benefits and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students: the case of mathematical word problems. J Educ Psychol 103(3):547. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023619

Kickul J, Neuman G (2000) Emergent leadership behaviors: the function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs. J Bus Psychol 15(1):27–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007714801558

Kinzler KD, Corriveau KH, Harries PL (2011) Children’s selective trust in native-accented speakers. Developmental Sci 14:106–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00965.x

Kinzler KD, Shutts K, DeJesus J, Spelke ES (2009) Accent trumps race in children’s social preferences. Soc Cognition 27:623–634. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623

Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: contstruct or metaphor? J Manag 20:403–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000206

Kruger AC (1993) Peer collaboration: conflict, cooperation, or both? Soc Dev 2(3):165–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00012.x

Kurtzberg TR (2005) Feeling creative, being creative: an empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Res J 17(1):51–65. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_5

Kwon SY, Cifuentes L (2009) The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers Educ 52(2):365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.012

Li H, Xu J, Chen J, Fan Y (2015) A reliability meta-analysis for 44 items big five inventory: based on the reliability generalization methodology. Adv Psychological Sci 23(5):755–765. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1042.2015.00755

Liberman Z, Woodward AL, Kinzler KD (2017) Origins of social categorization. Trends Cogn Sci 21(7):556–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.004

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Maltzman I, Eisman E, Brooks LO (1956) Some relationships between methods of instruction, personality variables, and problem-solving behavior. J Educ Psychol 47(2):71. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048019

McLeod PL, Lobel SA, Cox Jr TH (1996) Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Res 27(2):248–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272003

Mercer N (1996) The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learn Instr 6(4):359–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00021-7

Neeley T, Hinds PJ, Cramton CD (2009) Walking through jelly: language proficiency, emotions, and disrupted collaboration in global work. Harvard Business School Organizational Behavior Unit Working Paper, (09-138). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1414343

Nelson LM (1999) Collaborative problem solving. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory. Vol. II. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, p 241–267

Noels KA, Pon G, Clément R (1996) Language, identity, and adjustment: the role of linguistic self-confidence in the acculturation process. J Lang Soc Psychol 15(3):246–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960153003

Paradis M (1998) Language and communication in multilinguals. In: Handbook of neurolinguistics. Academic Press, p 417–430

Phelps E, Damon W (1989) Problem-solving with equals: peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. J Educ Psychol 81(4):639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.639

Phinney JS, Romero I, Nava M, Huang D (2001) The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. J Youth Adolescence 30(2):135–153. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010389607319

Rakić T, Steffens MC, Mummendey A (2011) Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. J Personal Soc Psychol 100:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021522

Raven J, Raven JC, Court JH (2004) Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Harcourt, San Antonio

Resnick LB, Glaser R (1976) Problem-solving and intelligence. In: Resnick LB (ed) The nature of intelligence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, p 205–230

Rice ML, Smolik F, Perpich D, Thompson T, Rytting N, Blossom M (2010) Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. J Speech Lang Hearing Res 53(2):333–349. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0183)

Ripoll H, Kerlirzin Y, Stein JF, Reine B (1995) Analysis of information processing, decision making, and visual strategies in complex problem-solving sport situations. Hum Mov Sci 14(3):325–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(95)00019-O

Roschelle J, Teasley SD (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem-solving. In: O’Malley C (ed) Computer supported collaborative learning. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p 69–97

Ross JA, Raphael D (1990) Communication and problem solving achievement in cooperative learning groups. J Curric Stud 22(2):149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027900220204

Shepard CR (1964) Small groups. Chandler Publishing Co, San Francisco

Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS (1999) Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 69(1):21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021

Srivathsavai R, Genco N, Hölttä-Otto K, Seepersad CC (2010) Study of existing metrics used in measurement of ideation effectiveness. In: ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p 355–366

Staples DS, Zhao L (2006) The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group Decis Negotiation 15(4):389–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9042-x

Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Personal Soc Psychol 48(6):1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467

Strough J, Berg CA, Meegan SP (2001) Friendship and gender differences in task and social interpretations of peer collaborative problem-solving. Soc Dev 10(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00145

SUTD-MIT International Design Centre (2015) Concept generation tools–mind mapping [Video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYIQWTlmnhY

Tajfel H, Flament C, Billig MG, Bundy RF (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur J Soc Psychol 1:149–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Terenzini PT, Cabrera AF, Colbeck CL, Bjorklund SA, Parente JM (2001) Racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom: does it promote student learning? J Higher Educ 509–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/2672879

Thornburg TH (1991) Group size and member diversity influence on creative performance. J Creative Behav 25(4):324–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1991.tb01145.x

Turner JC (1985) Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In: Lawler EJ (ed) Advances in group processes: theory and research. Vol. 2. JAI Press, Greenwich

Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell M (1987) Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Blackwell, Oxford/New York

U. S. Census Bureau (2010) The 2011 Statistical abstract. Languages spoken at home by language: 2008, Table 53. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/ancestry_language_spoken_at_home.html . Accessed 4 Aug 2011

Villa RA, Thousand JS, Nevin AI, Malgeri C (1996) Instilling collaboration for inclusive schooling as a way of doing business in public schools. Remedial Spec Educ 17(3):169–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259601700306

Webb N (1984) Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. J Educ Psychol 76:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.33

Webb NM, Troper JD, Fall R (1995) Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. J Educ Psychol 87(3):406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.406

Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW (1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad Manag Rev 18(2):293–321. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1993.3997517

Woolley AW, Gerbasi ME, Chabris CF, Kosslyn SM, Hackman JR (2008) Bringing in the experts: how team composition and collaborative planning jointly shape analytic effectiveness. Small Group Res 39(3):352–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317792

Wright S, Lander D (2003) Collaborative group interactions of students from two ethnic backgrounds. High Educ Res Dev 22(3):237–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000145121

Xu X, Zuo X, Wang X, Han S (2009) Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. J Neurosci 29(26):8525–8529. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2418-09.200

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants who participated in the study. We thank Stephanie Diez, Adam Oei, Yu Shaun Lim, Shirlyn Sia, and the Language and Social Cognition Lab members for their ideas and help in data collection and coding of mind-maps and audio recordings. Portions of this work were previously presented at the International Congress of Psychology 2016, and the International Conference on Applied Psychology 2016. This work was partially supported by the SUTD-MIT IDC grant (IDG31100106 and IDD41100104) and MOE Tier 1 grant (SUTDT12015007) awarded to the first author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, 487372, Singapore

W. Quin Yow & Tony Zhao Ming Lim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Quin Yow .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yow, W.Q., Lim, T.Z.M. Sharing the same languages helps us work better together. Palgrave Commun 5 , 154 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0365-z

Download citation

Received : 24 June 2019

Accepted : 08 November 2019

Published : 03 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0365-z

Share this article

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Collaborative Problem Solving, Crises, and Well-Being

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 24 January 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Ines Schindler 2 &
• Cynthia A. Berg 3  

72 Accesses

Collaborative coping; Common dyadic coping; Communal coping; Cooperative problem solving

Collaborative problem solving or collaborative coping refers to two (or more) people working together as a unit to solve a problem or cope with a stressor. It is a direct and active form of dyadic coping, as both dyad members invest resources to gather and evaluate information, jointly discuss options, and work together in implementing strategies and solutions. The joint and equal nature of collaboration can be contrasted to forms where dyad members are overly engaged so that one person dominates the interaction. Collaboration can offer various benefits to individual and dyadic well-being when coping with everyday stressors and when facing more severe crises, such as having to cope with chronic illness. However, such benefits depend on contextual and personal factors that affect the quality of the relationship among dyad members and how stressors are appraised.

Description

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Acquati, C., & Kayser, K. (2019). Dyadic coping across the lifespan: A comparison between younger and middle-aged couples with breast cancer. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 404. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00404 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Badr, H., & Acitelli, L. K. (2017). Re-thinking dyadic coping in the context of chronic illness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13 , 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.001 .

Badr, H., Carmack, C. L., Kashy, D. A., Cristofanilli, M., & Revenson, T. A. (2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychology, 29 (2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018165 .

Berg, C. A., & Upchurch, R. (2007). A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (6), 920–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920 .

Berg, C. A., Meegan, S. P., & Deviney, F. P. (1998). A social-contextual model of coping with everyday problems across the lifespan. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22 (2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502598384360 .

Berg, C. A., Wiebe, D. J., Butner, J., Bloor, L., Bradstreet, C., Upchurch, R., Hayes, J., Stephenson, R., Nail, L., & Patton, G. (2008). Collaborative coping and daily mood in couples dealing with prostate cancer. Psychology and Aging, 23 (3), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012687 .

Berg, C. A., Skinner, M., Ko, K., Butler, J. M., Palmer, D. L., Butner, J., & Wiebe, D. J. (2009). The fit between stress appraisal and dyadic coping in understanding perceived coping effectiveness for adolescents with Type 1 diabetes. Journal of Family Psychology, 23 (4), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015556 .

Berg, C. A., Schindler, I., Smith, T. W., Skinner, M., & Beveridge, R. M. (2011). Perceptions of the cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment functions of collaboration among middle-aged and older married couples. Psychology and Aging, 26 (1), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021124 .

Berg, C. A., Sewell, K. K., Hughes Lansing, A. E., Wilson, S. J., & Brewer, C. (2016). A developmental perspective to dyadic coping across adulthood. In J. Bookwala (Ed.), Couple relationships in the middle and later years: Their nature, complexity, and role in health and illness (pp. 259–280). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14897-014 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping: A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 47 , 137–140.

Google Scholar  

Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Testmanual [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber and Hogrefe.

Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20 (3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485 .

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Bradbury, T. N., Gmelch, S., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27 (3), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361616 .

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual wellbeing. European Psychologist, 16 (4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000068 .

Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1994). Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: Contextual perspective on patient self-efficacy. Journal of Family Psychology, 8 (1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.8.1.43 .

Falconier, M. K., & Kuhn, R. (2019). Dyadic coping in couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00571 .

Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. B., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42 , 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002 .

Hagedoorn, M., Kuijer, R. G., Buunk, B. P., DeJong, G. M., Wobbes, T., & Sanderman, R. (2000). Marital satisfaction in patients with cancer: Does support from intimate partners benefit those who need it the most? Health Psychology, 19 (3), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.3.274 .

Helgeson, V. S., Jakubiak, B., Van Vleet, M., & Zajdel, M. (2018). Communal coping and adjustment to chronic illness: Theory update and evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22 (2), 170–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317735767 .

Helgeson, V. S., Berg, C. A., Kelly, C. S., Van Vleet, M., Zajdel, M., Tracy, E. L., & Litchman, M. L. (2019). Patient and partner illness appraisals and health among adults with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42 (3), 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-018-0001-1 .

Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Sorokowski, P., Atkins, D. C., Sorokowska, A., Ahmadi, K., et al. (2016). The associations of dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction vary between and within nations: a 35-nation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 1106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106 .

Kayser, K., Watson, L., & Andrade, J. (2007). Cancer as a “We-Disease”: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Families, Systems, and Health, 25 (4), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527.25.4.404 .

Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15 (5), 579–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598155001 .

Meegan, S. P., & Berg, C. A. (2002). Contexts, functions, forms, and processes of collaborative everyday problem solving in older adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26 (1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000283 .

Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Walsh, K. J., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic coping in the U.S.: Psychometric properties and validity for use of the English Version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Current Psychology, 35 (4), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0 .

Revenson, T. A. (1994). Social support and marital coping with chronic illness. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16 (2), 122–130.

Revenson, T. A., Kayser, K., & Bodenmann, G. (2005). Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Book   Google Scholar  

Schindler, I., Berg, C. A., Butler, J. M., Fortenberry, K. T., & Wiebe, D. J. (2010). Late-midlife and older couples’ shared possible selves and psychological well-being during times of illness: The role of collaborative problem solving. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 65B (4), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbq030 .

Schokker, M. C., Links, T. P., Luttik, M. L., & Hagedoorn, M. (2010). The association between regulatory focus and distress in patients with a chronic disease: The moderating role of partner support. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15 (1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910709X429091 .

Zajdel, M., Helgeson, V. S., Seltman, H. J., Korytkowski, M. T., & Hausmann, L. R. M. (2018). Daily communal coping in couples with type 2 diabetes: Links to mood and self-care. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52 (3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax047 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Language and Literature, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Ines Schindler

Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Cynthia A. Berg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ines Schindler .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy

Filomena Maggino

Section Editor information

Directorate for methodology and statistical process design, Italian National Institute of Statistics, Rome, Italy

Adriano Pareto

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Schindler, I., Berg, C.A. (2021). Collaborative Problem Solving, Crises, and Well-Being. In: Maggino, F. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3908-2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3908-2

Received : 15 October 2019

Accepted : 10 November 2020

Published : 24 January 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-69909-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-69909-7

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Collaborative leadership: What it is and why it works so well for distributed teams

Collaborative leadership is a powerful approach that hinges on teamwork, cooperation, and shared responsibility. At its core, it's about leading by involving everyone, valuing each team member’s input, and working together toward common goals.

In a collaborative leadership scenario, you wouldn’t decide everything alone — instead, you'd gather ideas from everyone involved. The central tenet is that everyone’s input matters, and you’d aim to reach a decision that reflects the collective wisdom and preferences of the group.

Similarly, collaborative leadership means inviting and respecting everyone’s opinions and expertise on company projects and initiatives. It’s not just about ‘the boss’ or one person making decisions. When teams work together, they can use different perspectives, ideas, and strengths to create new solutions.

What is collaborative leadership?

Collaborative leadership means working closely with all team members, regardless of their title or role. Under collaborative leadership, managers value employee contributions equally and make shared decisions.

Leaders who embrace a collaborative leadership style actively encourage team members to share information openly, fostering a culture of transparency and knowledge exchange. They emphasize cooperation, open communication, and collective problem-solving . 

Traditional leadership vs. collaborative leadership

Traditional and hierarchical leadership models generally involve ‌centralized authority and top-down decision-making. 

For instance, imagine a company that uses traditional or hierarchical leadership is considering a restructure of its marketing strategy. The leadership team unilaterally decides on the new marketing approach without input from the marketing team or other departments. The decision is then cascaded down the hierarchy, and employees are expected to execute the strategy with limited involvement in the decision-making process.

Collaborative leadership involves greater inclusivity and shared decision-making responsibilities. 

Think about the same situation above but with a collaborative leadership team: Collaborative leaders invite input from various levels of the organization. The marketing team, along with representatives from sales, customer service, and even junior staff, are involved in brainstorming sessions. Through open dialogue and collaboration, ideas are exchanged, and the team makes a collective decision. 

Core principles of collaborative leadership  

The three main principles of collaborative leadership are: 

• Shared decision-making: Collaborative leadership means getting input from all team members so you can make informed decisions that positively impact everyone. It means you value diverse perspectives and insights and genuinely seek input and feedback on company initiatives.
• Mutual respect and trust: Transparent and open communication is at the heart of collaborative leadership. The goal is to create an environment where team members are valued and respected. They should feel welcome to share their thoughts without fear of judgment.
• Collective intelligence: Collaborative leaders recognize and appreciate the strengths of each team member — their unique knowledge, diverse experiences, skills, and background. They use each person’s strengths to solve problems, innovate, and achieve common goals.

Why is collaborative leadership important for distributed teams?

Distributed teams often grapple with hurdles such as communication barriers, team silos , collaboration struggles, and the inherent difficulty of fostering connections among team members scattered across different locations. These challenges can impede teamwork and put a damper on productivity. 

Collaborative leadership offers a solution to these challenges. Collaborative leadership bridges the gaps created by distance and diverse time zones by focusing on communication and understanding. Managers can create an inclusive culture where team members feel valued by listening to and respecting their opinions and contributions.

Ultimately, collaborative leadership reduces the barriers distributed teams face. It makes everyone integral to the team’s shared goals and successes, regardless of their physical location.

Benefits of collaborative leadership in distributed teams

In a collaborative leadership environment, the benefits extend beyond productivity and efficiency to the team’s overall well-being. 

Improves team cohesion and morale

Team cohesion refers to the sense of unity and camaraderie within a group, and it’s crucial for workplace success , including productivity and job satisfaction. It fosters a supportive environment where team members feel like an essential part of the team.

Collaborative leaders recognize the significance of building relationships among team members. With collaborative leadership, you can create a culture where everyone feels connected, valued, and aligned on common objectives . This sense of belonging boosts morale and encourages team members to support one another, fostering a stronger and more cohesive team dynamic.

Enhances creativity and problem-solving

Creativity and effective problem-solving are vital for innovation and overcoming challenges. Collaborative leadership helps with this by promoting an environment where different ideas converge. This approach encourages individuals to consider the big picture, emphasizing a shared vision and purpose.

Collaborative leaders thrive on harnessing diverse perspectives and expertise. This inclusive approach sparks creativity, encourages out-of-the-box thinking, and results in successful solutions to complex problems.

A study from the Harvard Business Review illustrates this. An airline company had customer service problems. Part inspections took eight hours — very time-consuming. Since the company fosters a culture of collaborative leadership, an administrative assistant could identify the underlying issue and suggest a creative solution. The chief technology officer turned the idea into reality and cut inspection time by 85%. Without collaborative leadership, the administrative assistant might not have been given the chance to share her solution with the team.

Reduces feelings of isolation among team members

Feelings of isolation can negatively impact remote team members. Factors like reduced social interaction, limited visibility, and recognition, and communication challenges can contribute to these feelings of isolation.  

One study found that feeling isolated from work and colleagues made people less satisfied with their work-from-home experience. But the study also found a simple solution: The more support and connection respondents perceived from their organization, the more likely they were to report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction working remotely.

Collaborative leadership actively combats feelings of isolation by acknowledging and addressing the challenges of remote work. Through clear communication, inclusivity, and cultivating a supportive work environment, leaders can mitigate feelings of isolation in distributed teams.

Increases employee engagement

Engagement signifies the level of commitment and enthusiasm team members have toward their work. And high engagement generally means higher productivity and profitability, according to research by Gallup. 

Collaborative leadership boosts engagement by actively involving individuals in decision-making, valuing their contributions, and creating a platform for open dialogue. When team members feel heard and valued, they become more engaged and motivated.

Use collaboration tools to drive success through collaborative leadership

In the enduring landscape of distributed work, collaborative leadership helps remove challenges, such as isolation and communication barriers, and enhances team cohesion, creativity, and engagement. Fostering a collaborative environment isn’t just an idea; it’s the cornerstone of success for distributed teams.

It’s important to equip your team with tools that amplify collaboration and teamwork. 

Mural, a visual work platform, offers hundreds of free templates and resources designed to unite teams, provide a clear overview of projects, and streamline decision-making. 

About the authors

Bryan Kitch

Tagged Topics

Related blog posts

Trust your people — you hired them for a reason

7 tips for providing constructive feedback to your team

10 ways to build trust in a team

Related blog posts.

10 virtual meeting tools for team collaboration and engagement

Leigh-Margaret Stull shares more on the future state of Mural

The best enterprise collaboration tools as of 2024

• Collaborative Problem Solving, A Talk with Dr. Stuart Ablon »
• FOR CLINICIANS
• FOR EDUCATORS
• FOR PARENTS

Recent Articles

• How To Talk to Your Kids About Social Media
• Corporal Punishment Ban in New York Sparks Awareness of Practice
• Kids Lack Skill, Not Will
• The Village Network's Implementation Journey
• To Fix Students’ Bad Behavior, Stop Punishing Them
• Behaviors Charts: Helpful or Harmful?

COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

Collaborative problem solving, a talk with dr. stuart ablon, a flawless foundation #flawlesstalk.

In this presentation at the Churchill School, sponsored by The Flawless Foundation, Dr. J. Stuart Ablon describes what causes challenging behavior and the Collaborative Problem Solving ® approach.

Highlights include:

• What consequences do, and don't do
• Collaborative Problem Solving is trauma-informed
• What is discipline
• Research on skills deficits
• Planning an intervention using Collaborative Problem Solving

Collaborative Problem Solving, presented by The Flawless Foundation

Privacy overview.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Business Collaboration collaborative culture company culture

5 Expert Collaborative Problem-Solving Strategies

Lorin mccann.

• December 9th, 2015

You don’t need to be an executive to initiate powerful change within your organization. According to collaboration expert Jane Ripley, collaboration begins with you.

Expecting superiors, employees, coworkers, or other departments to take responsibility will get you nowhere, fast. Instead, adopt collaboration as a personal responsibility and be unafraid to take initiative — it doesn’t matter if you’re an entry-level employee or a seasoned executive.

Jane Ripley is a collaboration expert and co-author of the book Collaboration Begins With You: Be a Silo Buster along with Ken Blanchard and Eunice Parisi-Carew (you can follow Jane on Twitter: @WiredLeadership ). Jane draws on her research working with companies ranging from small businesses and entrepreneurs to large, multi-national enterprises to talk about collaborative problem-solving strategies professionals can use no matter what organizational level they’re at.

Initiating collaborative problem-solving within an organization is a complex task, with many moving parts. Jane describes it well: “Imagine you’re in the aircraft and there’s this dashboard. You’ve got to try and get all the buttons and levers in the right places.” Collaboration within an organization is also a complex process.

The approach Jane and her co-authors adopt in their books aims to simplify a complex subject with actionable models, including the UNITE model for collaborative problem-solving:

U = Utilize difference N = Nurture safety and trust I = Involve others in creating a clear purpose, values, and goals T = Talk openly E = Empower yourself and others

Executives can use these strategies to transform the culture and impact of their organizations from the company culture from the top down. Alternatively,entry-level employees can adopt the same strategies to accelerate professional growth while offering enormous value to their organizations from the bottom up.

In this post, we’ll look at each of the elements of the UNITE model — and what you need to know to put them into action.  

1. Utilize differences in collaborative problem-solving

Collaborative problem-solving relies on the presence of multiple perspectives.

Jane advises to remember that different perspectives are not personal. In fact, conflict is important.

Fear of contrasting opinions often indicates a competitive mindset, not a collaborative one. This only creates more problems rather than solving them.

“The power,” Jane says, “is in the combination of perspectives.”  

2. Nurture safety and trust within your organization

Effective collaboration is impossible when trust isn’t a part of the culture.

Jane elaborates: “My co-author, Eunice Parisi-Carew, always says, ‘Fear is the number one inhibitor to collaboration, because if you’re inhibited, you won’t contribute, and if you don’t contribute nobody will know that you have a different perspective.’”

In fact, trust is one of the most crucial elements in being a silo-buster; it plays enormous role in preventing bottlenecks and accelerating growth.

“Some people come to the workplace trusting everybody, and they get let down. Other people come to the workplace believing nobody will do the work as well as they can. Those people try to do it all and become a bottleneck,” Jane explains.

Low trust within an organization rarely goes unnoticed. Even if executives are unaware of the problem, employees always are — it negatively impacts their ability to be effective.

A tell-tale sign of a low-trust culture for leaders is when people don’t contribute ideas. Jane shares a classic example: “When the leader sits at the meeting and says, ‘I’ve got this new thing that’s been handed to us from headquarters, now we’ve got to implement XYZ initiative. Any ideas?’ And…there’s no response.”

Silence follows because, as Jane explains, “not usually because [the employees] don’t have any ideas, it’s just that they just don’t want to voice them” — for fear of criticism, negative feedback, no feedback, or backlash.  

3. Involve others for effective collaborative problem-solving

According to Jane, “Not all the best ideas come from the top, and not all the best ideas come from a specific group. Marketing can have a very valuable perspective on the use of collaborative software, and so can IT.”

It may be uncomfortable to involve people and departments with whom you don’t currently have a relationship, but it’s essential for effective collaborative problem-solving. Even as an entry-level employee, you can take the initiative to open the lines of communication to other people within your organization.

Invite someone to lunch — or suggest involving someone from another department in a final review on a project that could use their feedback. It’s a simple way to begin, but it’s powerful.  

4. Don’t be afraid to talk openly

How important is speed to your organization? On a scale of one to ten it’s probably an eight, nine, or ten.

According to Jane, speed is the number-one benefit of talking openly, or transparency: “If you’ve all got the same information, you can all make decisions and bring those pieces of information together to solve the problem more quickly.” Alternatively, a lack of transparency creates confusion, more meetings, and more discussion.

“So now you’ve got a [unproductive] discussion instead of having everybody on the same level playing field all coming at it from the same approach, able to look at the data or the information and critically evaluate that,” she adds.

And speed isn’t the only benefit of talking openly. As counterintuitive as it may seem, so is security.

Jane often talks about information theft when discussing transparency. “When information is kept in silos you open up an opportunity for other people to prosper from it,” she says. “So an unscrupulous individual can take that information and do what they like with it, whereas if it’s common knowledge, it’s in the public domain, [and] they have no more power.”  

5. Don’t wait to empower yourself and others

As a leader, empowering your organization starts with you. As an employee, it’s no different! You can’t wait for someone at the top to make the shift before you allow yourself to as well.

Jane shares insights into how both leaders and employees can take take steps to empower themselves, and in doing so empower others:

Firstly, leaders must discard a competitive mindset in favor of a collaborative one.

“Empowering yourself and others is the big part for the leader. [Leaders] are coaching for competence, creating clarity around goals, and setting boundaries. They’re removing roadblocks, sharing their networks, and giving opportunities to build knowledge… it’s how they help an individual become collaborative and make a greater contribution [to the organization].”

Instead of keeping your knowledge, network, and expertise close to the vest as a leader, share it openly with your employees. Not only will your experiences add enormous value to their professional growth, it will also empower them to be more effective in their jobs. They’ll also trust and appreciate you more.

Employees can also take initiative within their organization, regardless of the current company culture. They can start by offering their ideas, insights — even their networks.

Jane says, “It always amazes me how, particularly with the millennial generation, that they’re networked electronically they have some phenomenal people in their networks and can bring those equally to leaders who are sitting in a position maybe four, five, six, seven years older than them, it’s tremendous.”  

People are innately collaborative

Jane ties together the concepts and action steps surrounding collaborative problem with a familiar example:

“People are innately collaborative. We do it innately and we do it socially. If somebody wants to throw a party everybody says,‘What should I bring?’‘What shall I do?’ ‘I’ll do the decorating!’

And yet, when they come to work, ‘Oh, wait a minute, the decorating belongs to that department, refreshments belongs to that department, so now we need a meeting.’”

“We’re wired,” Jane explains, “for collaboration, and it’s our workplace habits, systems, and beliefs that get in the way. For better collaborative problem-solving where you work, you don’t need more meetings.”

Instead, work on building a culture of collaboration by utilizing difference, nurturing safety and trust, involving others in creating a clear purpose, values, and goals, talking openly, and empowering yourself and others. And that’s something we all can do.

Lorin is an inbound marketer and demand generation specialist at Lotus Growth , a B2B marketing consultancy. She also helps entrepreneurs kick off new digital marketing strategies at Vrtical . Read more by Lorin McCann »

Data Center

The 3 pillars of successful collaborative problem solving.

We already covered quite a lot of ground when it comes to assuming a leadership position and building a positive team environment . But there is still one topic missing: how can you bring the best out of the group efforts? How can you stimulate people to solve problems together and to join forces towards a common goal?

This article will cover the subject of collaborative problem solving, and we will explore its many dimensions and particularities. While there are certain situations where individual decision making is recommended, there is a wide body of research that shows group decisions as superior to individual ones. Groups usually bring more background information, different perspectives, and a broader range of solutions to the problem at hand.

While there are many components to analyze in collaborative problem solving, we will focus on three during this article:

Analyzing the Problem from the Perspective of the Group

• Managing Conflict within a Group
• Creating an Environment for Continuous Learning

People have different approaches to problem solving. Some prefer to go with their guts and solve the problems as they come without looking at the big picture or at possible consequences of a choice; others – like me – prefer to conduct a more detailed analysis of the different possible scenarios and to try to forecast the most likely implications of each decision.

Bringing together people with different attitudes definitely has its benefits, but you should keep an eye for the conflicts that might arise. People who rely on their guts might simply become annoyed by the level of details demanded by the more rational fellows. These, on the other hand, might not like the quick decisions made by intuitive people and decide to become less active in the project.

It is important to understand that there are both risks and benefits to group problem solving. However, if the situation is managed properly, the benefits usually outweigh the risks.

The 7-Steps Divergent-Convergent Method for Problem Analysis

We already discussed several brainstorming techniques for managing risks in a project . Brainstorming, however, is just one of the steps in solving problems collaboratively, so let’s discuss a more general framework to address the issue. But before, I would like to make a quick remark. As the leader of your team , it is your responsibility to provide an established method for solving the challenges your project faces. If you use a different method each time you get together to discuss an issue, it will take time for your team to adapt and the members might feel a bit lost. Therefore, a recommended practice is to develop a unified framework that is both broad enough to be useful in most future situations and practical enough to be easily implemented. This standardization also addresses the problem of different perspectives, since all the members are aware of the steps involved in the process.

While there are many variations and possibilities to create a framework for collaborative problem solving, I am particularly fond of a 7-steps divergent-convergent approach presented by this Project Management Book . The figure below details the steps, and the following discussion explains each one.

Step 01 – Identifying the Problem

Identifying the problem is the most critical part of problem solving because it directs all the following project efforts. If a rocket is not perfectly aligned at the launching time, there is almost nothing the crew can do to fix the situation. In competitions such as Bobsleigh, the beginning is the most crucial moment. The same is valid for our projects: if we don’t start right, we will not finish right.

Step 02 – Identifying the Real Cause of the Problem

What is actually causing your company to lose money? Is it low demand (i.e. the market’s “fault”) or a bad product (i.e. your fault)? How can you identify it?

Looking for the source of the problem is a process that might require some time and the analysis of several sources of data. Regarding our previous question, how can you identify if it’s the general demand that is low or if it’s a flaw in your product that is making people run away? Looking at the competitors’ situations is a good start. How are they doing in the market? Are they successful? If yes, then chances are high that the customers are leaving you because they don’t like your product or service. If you want to dig deeper into the cause of it, look at past data from your company. At which exact moment did you experience losses in the number of customers? After which update? What does your competition have that you don’t?

Looking for the real source of the problem is much more efficient if you have multiple perspectives, so group decision earns a plus point here. Different heads eliminate the confirmation bias of an individual decision maker.

Step 03 – Setting the Prerequisites for Your Solution

What does the final solution for the problem look like? When will you achieve it? The prerequisites of a solution define exactly that: the ideal conditions of solving the problem at hand. In our previous example, we can think of several intermediate and final requirements for the solution: broadly speaking, our problem will be solved when we implement a product that not only solves the previous flaws but also meets the demands of the market. The discussion about how to create a highly effective work breakdown structure might prove itself useful in identifying the different components of the problem and in establishing a precise end-point to the process.

Step 04 – Generating Alternatives

This is the time when brainstorming is most useful. Once you specify where you want to go, it is time to start thinking about how to get there. Naturally, creativity is something that requires time, and the creative process might even seem inefficient to some. This step, however, is extremely important in solving problems, since one among the alternatives generated will be the base for the future work. Therefore, you should really spend some time here to make sure that you have a very relevant (doesn’t need to be exhaustive though, that’s impossible) list of alternatives from which you can choose the best one for the moment.

Step 05 – Selecting an Alternative among the Options

If you don’t have good options, you will not have a good solution. Now it is time to scrutinize the alternatives created by using the prerequisites defined earlier. You might want to look at both qualitative and quantitative components of an alternative, and search for the one that offers the highest benefits at the lowest costs. Evidently, this is not an easy step: there is a lot of uncertainty going on, and it is simply not possible to know for sure which alternative is the absolute best to solve your problem.

Step 06 – Performing a Risk Analysis and a Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Alternative

This is why the next step involves performing a risk analysis and a profit vs. cost evaluation of the selected alternative. It might be the case that, after looking at the risks involved and at the potential profits, the team decides to go back and choose another possible solution. This is totally fine and is part of the process, but you should also consider what made you choose the wrong alternative in the first place. Maybe you overlooked a critical component? Maybe you did not consider the consequences and the costs in details? If you want to improve your problem solving skills, it is not enough to correct wrong decisions. You have to look back and identify why the wrong decision was made, which data was missing, and how you can fix it to improve future decision making.

Step 07 – Create a Plan of Action

Once you have chosen which alternative to pursue, it is time to create an actionable plan to implement it. I explore in details the art of creating a work breakdown structure in a separate article, and the process can be used here as well.

How to Manage Conflict within Your Project Team

Any group working on the same project is destined to fight. Conflicts might happen early in the course of the project, or they might come in more advanced stages. It’s not an “if”, but a when” matter. So what should you do when they appear? Should you simply run away and try to avoid all types of conflict? Should you just assume a totalitarian approach and impose yourself as the boss and holder of the right opinion? Hopefully I don’t even need to answer these questions for you. But while many people see conflict as something negative to the health of the project, I would like to propose a way to look at conflict as a positive step in collaborative problem solving. What if you could use conflict to boost the performance of your team? Wouldn’t that be great?

The two main problems that conflicts cause are (1) making the wrong decision, and (2) damaging team relationships. While making the wrong decision is quite straightforward to solve – you just need to carry a rational analysis of the consequences of the action -, managing the relationships is a bit harder. This happens because, well, if there is conflict in the problem solving process, there will inevitably be a losing side. The key is to find a way to work together with your team in order to show to everyone why certain decisions are made, as well as to maintain a good relationship among all team members.

So before we move to the right way of dealing with conflict, let’s have a look at the wrong way of doing it.

4 Wrong Ways of Dealing with Conflict

Avoiding or Moving Away from the Conflict

This happens quite often. When people see they will not win the argument, they sometimes just walk away. It’s the “I prefer leaving rather than admitting I was wrong” mindset. From a leader perspective, the issue is a bit broader: you might not only want to avoid your personal conflicts, but you may also choose to withdraw from conflicts in your team. If two people disagree on something, walking away and not acknowledging that there is a conflict is one of the worst ways to deal with it. If the conflict is an actual problem – and not just a discussion about whether cats are better than dogs -, walking away will just postpone the matter until you can’t hide anymore. The problem is: if you can’t hide, it means the problem has become really big. So, instead of running away at the first sign of conflicts, acknowledge their presence and work together with your team to solve them.

Hide or Smooth Over the Conflict

While this might be a suitable short-term solution, prioritizing relationships over decisions will cause you to do suboptimal choices. Camouflaging conflicts is the practice of “ focusing on the positive side ” of the relationships instead of looking at the whole picture. Even though this hides the problem, it doesn’t solve it.

Forcing the Solutions of Disagreements

This is one of the main differences between leaders and bosses . The boss will normally approach the conflict as something negative and, if no agreement is reached, will impose his or her own opinion grounded on the fact that “he (or she) is the boss”. The boss might do it through raising his voice, laughing at your idea, or just the argument that he is the decision maker.

Hopefully, the destructive nature of such approach is as clear for you as it is for me. Forcing a decision impacts negatively both components of conflict: it does not ensure that the right decision will be made, and it for sure damages the relationships in the project team.

Accepting a Lose-Lose Solution

If not everyone can have it, then nobody will have it. This approach usually involves reducing the solution to give both parts of the conflict a “fair share”: both of them don’t get exactly what they want, but in the end they are somewhat satisfied because the other side didn’t get it either. Despite sounding “fair”, this approach is as bad as the previous one in a sense that it also impacts negatively both components of the conflict: there is no guarantee that relationships will be improved, and the results will certainly be suboptimal.

The Right Way of Dealing with Conflict – Confronting It

Now that we know what not to do, it is time to talk about what to do when there is a conflict to solve.

The first step is to try to prevent the conflict. And I’m not talking about a laissez-faire approach of letting your team move by itself in the hope that if no active actions are taken, no real conflicts will arise. I’m talking about actively setting up the environment in order to maximize the chances of “conflictless” collaborative problem solving. Have a look at the article on how to build a positive team environment in order to get great insights on how to manage your project environment.

If, despite your efforts, the conflict still happens, it is your job to acknowledge it. Make it clear to people why there is a conflict, what is the subject or decision related to it, and how people are dealing with the situation. Normally the disagreement will be about some aspect of the project, and not about the people working on the team. Therefore, acknowledging the problem will help you detach it from the personal level and avoid hurting people.

Once the conflict is acknowledged, it is time to position it in the context of the project. Which components of the project will be affected by the decision at hand? Do you have to solve the conflict now or can you wait for more information before issuing an ultimatum?

We already agreed that forcing a decision is not helpful at all. So on what should you focus if not on positions? My suggestion is to try to understand the interests of each part. What are they looking for? If people are asking for more memory on the computers you are about to buy, why do they need it? Is it a sensible argument? Interests, goals, and requirements will give you a better understanding of what each side is trying to achieve with the decision at hand. This, in turn, will help you manage the conflict more efficiently than before.

Once you have a good understanding of the problem, it is time to discuss the alternatives. We already discussed it earlier in this articles, so I will not go through everything again. The process is pretty similar to the steps 04 and 05 in the divergent-convergent framework for problem solving .

Ok, I know it all sounds wonderful in theory, but the problems start when we move to practice. Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but there is not much more I can do here apart from discussing the general guidelines for dealing with conflicts. I simply cannot provide a detailed guideline to each and every specific situation you might encounter. This is why conflict management relies a lot on experience and on observing how the team behaves while working together. You must deeply understand the members of your team before you are able to provide a solution that fits all sides.

Creating the Environment for Continuous Learning

Continuous learning makes the third pillar of our successful collaborative problem solving framework. This concept has two sides: it encourages people to take more risks, and it helps learning and improvement through mistakes.

Creating the Right Culture for Continuous Learning

The speed and the efficiency with which people learn depend not only on themselves as individuals but also on the organizational culture that permeates the project team. If you punish every failure of your team members, do you really expect them to try something new? If you shout every time they give a different idea, do you really expect them to actively contribute during team meetings?

Here are a few guidelines that project managers can follow to speed up the process of continuous learning:

• Be accessible to your team and welcome new ideas and opinions.
• Ask for the opinion of your team members when discussing topics related to the project.
• Serve as a model of curiosity and humility.
• Encourage everyone to participate, despite the mistakes they might do during the process.
• Eliminate people’s fear of being punished because of their mistakes.
• Praise the team members when they are successful in accomplishing a task or when they offer valuable input to a situation.

The idea of continuous learning is kind of a consequence of what we already discussed. Having a good set of ground rules , listening actively to your team members, and promoting honest discussions are just a few among the many key elements that define an effective culture for continuous learning. Here are a few other components that you want to keep in mind:

Notice and Question Assumptions

This is really a skill for life. Learning how to question assumptions and how to properly address them brings you a much more complete understanding of the reality around you. I’ve experienced that myself, and I would never choose to remain ignorant to this skill. In the context of project management, questioning assumptions is about questioning the basis of your information. What are the statements on which you are grounding your analysis? What is the evidence behind each statement? Are your assumptions in accordance to your data?

Make Learning a Conscious and Recurring Activity

Many people think that learning is restricted to school and university. There is a time in life when you “study”, and there is a time when you “work”. What they are missing is the fact that these can (and should) be integrated into a broader concept of “learning to improve yourself”. Whether at university or at work, learning for self-improvement is the most effective way of learning new things. My own example comes in handy again (no, I’m not a narcissistic person). In high school, I would learn just for sake of entering university. I’ve spent 11 years of my childhood and adolescence studying every single basic field of science to literally flush it away of my mind after the final exams. I don’t really regret that, specially because regretting too long over the past brings unnecessary pain, but I wish it had been different. In any case, I am lucky to have learned my lesson early in life, while still in my early 20s. Now everything that I study, every single article I read, every post I write, everything is for the sake of developing a better version of myself day after day. I am learning consciously, and this makes all the difference.

Stimulate Creativity and Provide a Structured Approach To It

A structured approach to creativity, really? Are you serious? Hell yeah. Creativity is not a single event in our days. We don’t wake up and *poof!* “Now I am creative!” You might wake up and have a great idea right after opening your eyes, but this is just the tangible manifestation of days and months of apparently uncreative effort. The creative *poof* (or eureka, if you prefer), is just the tip of the iceberg. It is, however, the part that gets the most attention. And if you know a bit of psychology, you know that this conditions create the perfect scenario for the very interesting availability heuristic . In one sentence: the availability heuristic says that we judge the likelihood of an event based on how easily we can retrieve instances of similar situations from our memory. So if we just receive information saying that creativity is a magical moment, we will hardly ever see it as a laborious process. The truth, however, is that we must be disciplined and consume a lot of information before we are capable of producing valuable insights on our own.

Question the Goals, Scope, and Plan of the Project

Last but not least, you should always go back and take another look at the goals, scope, and plan of your project. There is a well-known saying: “Every new information modifies a decision.” Continuous learning presupposes reviewing early decisions once you have gathered more data in the course of the project.

Final Words

And with this article we are done covering the three most important aspects of how to effectively manage a team. There is much more to discuss, I know, but these are the most fundamental skills you must incorporate before moving to other topics. Hopefully the article was helpful and see in the next post!

Start a Free Trial

Your 14-day trial comes with sample data for a quick evaluation

More From Forbes

Using emotional intelligence and respect to resolve conflict in the workplace: an executive coach's perspective.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Dr. Michele D’Amico is the Founder of Vetta Consultants, LLC , an executive coaching firm in Los Angeles.

Conflict in the workplace is inevitable. It arises from differences in personalities, work styles and competing interests. However, how these conflicts are managed can significantly impact an organization's culture, employee morale and overall productivity.

As an executive coach, I have seen firsthand the transformative power of emotional intelligence and respect in resolving workplace conflicts, strengthening relationships, fostering collaboration and creating a more cohesive work environment.

The Role Of Respect In Conflict Resolution

Respect in the workplace means acknowledging the inherent worth and value of every individual by treating everyone with courtesy, politeness and kindness. Respectful behavior fosters a positive work environment where employees feel valued and understood, making it easier to address and resolve conflicts.

When conflicts arise, integrating emotional intelligence and respect can lead to more effective and sustainable resolutions. Here are some strategies that I recommend to leaders and teams:

Fostering Self-Awareness And Self-Management

Best high-yield savings accounts of 2024, best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

I encourage leaders to start with self-awareness. Understanding your own emotional triggers and responses is crucial in conflict situations. When leaders recognize their emotions, they can manage them better, preventing escalation. Techniques such as mindfulness and reflection can enhance self-awareness and self-management.

A manager who becomes aware that they feel defensive when their ideas are challenged can learn to pause, take a deep breath and approach the situation more calmly and openly.

Practicing Active Listening

Active listening requires full concentration, understanding, responding and remembering what is being said. It shows respect and empathy toward the speaker, which can defuse tension and open the door to constructive dialogue.

During a heated discussion, a leader can practice active listening by paraphrasing what the other person has said and asking clarifying questions. This demonstrates that they value the other person's perspective.

Cultivating Empathy

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It is a critical component of social awareness and respect. Leaders who cultivate empathy can better understand the root causes of conflicts and address them more effectively.

If two team members are in conflict over a project deadline, an empathetic leader should take the time to understand each person's concerns and pressures, thereby finding a solution that considers both perspectives whenever possible.

Communicating With Clarity And Respect

Clear and respectful communication is essential in conflict resolution. It involves being direct yet considerate, expressing your own needs and concerns while acknowledging those of others.

A leader addressing a conflict might say, "I understand that you're feeling frustrated about the project timeline. Let's discuss how we can adjust our approach to meet everyone's needs."

Encouraging Collaborative Problem-Solving

Collaborative problem-solving involves working together to find a mutually acceptable solution. It requires openness, creativity and a willingness to compromise.

In a team conflict, a leader can facilitate a brainstorming session where all parties contribute ideas and solutions, fostering a sense of ownership and cooperation.

Providing Constructive Feedback

Feedback should be specific, focused on behavior rather than personality and delivered with the intent to help the other person improve. Constructive feedback is a powerful tool for resolving conflicts and preventing future ones.

Instead of saying, "You're always late with your reports," try saying, "I've noticed that the reports have been coming in after the deadline. How can we ensure they are submitted on time?"

Consider the case of a marketing team at a mid-sized company that was experiencing frequent conflicts over project responsibilities. As an executive coach, I was brought in to help resolve these issues. Here's how we applied emotional intelligence and respect to transform the team's dynamics:

• Self-Awareness And Self-Management: Team members participated in workshops to identify their emotional triggers and learn techniques for managing stress and frustration.

• Active Listening: We conducted exercises in active listening, where team members practiced paraphrasing and asking questions to fully understand each other's viewpoints.

• Empathy: Through role-playing activities, team members learned to put themselves in each other's shoes, fostering greater empathy and understanding.

• Clear Communication: We developed guidelines for respectful communication, emphasizing the importance of clarity and consideration.

• Collaborative Problem-Solving: The team engaged in collaborative problem-solving sessions, where they collectively addressed the root causes of their conflicts and developed shared solutions.

• Constructive Feedback: I provided training on delivering and receiving constructive feedback, helping team members learn to give feedback in a way that was helpful rather than hurtful.

Over time, these strategies significantly reduced the frequency and intensity of conflicts within the team. Team members reported feeling more valued, understood and connected, leading to increased productivity and job satisfaction.

The Long-Term Benefits Of Effective Conflict Resolution

Implementing emotional intelligence and respect in conflict resolution has long-term benefits for the organization:

• Improved Employee Morale: Employees who feel heard and respected are more engaged and motivated.

• Enhanced Collaboration: A respectful and emotionally intelligent workplace fosters better teamwork and collaboration.

• Increased Innovation: When employees feel safe to express their ideas without fear of ridicule, creativity can flourish.

• Lower Turnover Rates: A positive work environment reduces employee turnover, saving the organization time and resources in recruitment and training.

• Stronger Leadership: Leaders who practice emotional intelligence and respect set a positive example, building a culture of trust and integrity.

Final Thoughts

As an executive coach, I have witnessed the profound impact that emotional intelligence and respect can have on resolving workplace conflicts. These tools not only address immediate issues but also contribute to a healthier, more productive and more harmonious work environment. By fostering self-awareness, empathy and respectful communication, leaders can transform conflict into an opportunity for growth and connection, ultimately strengthening the entire organization.

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions