Why do groups make bad decisions? Why are small groups blind when the correct solution seems obvious? Are group members too cohesive or are members of the group afraid to speak up and voice their opinion? Do the members of the group feel like they have to agree with the leader? Why do group members assume that they do not have to be accountable for the group's decisions? Why do group leaders let bad decisions occur? 
People work in groups everyday, whether it is in the workplace, the classroom, or in the community—we are all members of groups and we should all understand how they work, and equally important, how to optimize our experiences in them. Research has suggested that groups are more productive than any single individual and that groups "typically outperform individuals when the tasks being done require multiple skills, judgment, and experience" (Robbins, 1995). It would be naïve to suggest that all group experiences are positive, and that all group decisions yield positive outcomes. With the prevalence of groups in today's society it is very important to understand that groups can make bad decisions. Having adequate knowledge of why bad decisions occur, however, serves to illuminate the available strategies that can prevent negative outcomes.
Communication theorists have attempted to explain negative experiences in terms of individual characteristics and identify specific negative individual consequences of being a group member in terms of grouphate or social loafing. Sorensen (1981) defines grouphate as the negative view that some people have of working in groups that can influence their active participation in group socialization and group work activities. Other communication researchers have claimed that negative feelings about groups and members can carry over to subsequent group situations (Sinclair-James & Stohl, 1997). Latane, Williams, and Harkins (1979) define social loafing as "a decrease in individual effort due to the social presence of other persons." Both of these theories primarily investigate negative outcomes as a direct consequence of individual behavior. Whereas grouphate and social loafing focus on negative individual consequences of being a group member, group polarization and groupthink result in negative outcomes suffered by the entire group. 
Group polarization and groupthink are two theoretical viewpoints that focus on the entire group as the unit of analysis. Rothwell (1998) defines group polarization as "the tendency to make a decision that is more extreme, either riskier or more cautious, after discussion has occurred than the initial preferences of group members (86). McCauley and Segal (1987) suggest that members in a group will take part in more risky activities as a member of the group, while Levine and Moreland (1990) argue that group members will be more conservative. Either way, the group is studied as a system and improper functioning is explained as a negative outcome of group processing. Groupthink, on the other hand, is defined by Janis (1972) as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action" (9). The basic tenet of groupthink (as it was originally conceptualized) is that too much cohesion within a group is the primary explanation for why groups produce negative outcomes. 
Janis cites overestimations of the group, closed-mindedness, and pressures toward uniformity as the three categories in which groupthink symptoms fall. He also identifies eight symptoms of groupthink. 1.) Illusion of Invulnerability—the group believes that they cannot make bad decisions. 2.) Belief in Inherent Morality of the Group—the group believes that all of their decisions are being made for the right reasons. 3.) Collective Rationalization—they tell themselves things that will make the decision acceptable. 4.) Out-group Stereotypes—they will look down and ignore people that are not part of their group. 5.) Self-censorship—group members will only pass along information that they think is important. Symptoms 6-8 are referred to as 6.) Illusion of Unanimity—the group members will assume that everyone in the group agrees with the decision whether they do or not. 7.) Direct Pressure on Dissenters—they will pressure group members into conforming. 8.) Self-appointed Mindgaurds—group members will protect the group leader (Janis, 174-175). Janis argues that when a group displays all (or most) of the symptoms of groupthink the members will perform their tasks collectively and the probability of failure is high. 
Others scholars have studied groupthink and have identified faulty information processing as the antecedent of negative group outcomes. Schafer and Crichlow (1996) assert that the fate of the group's decision is already determined at the time information is being shared among group members. They identify five factors that lead to information processing errors: 1) Lack of a traditional, impartial leadership style, 2) lack of tradition of methodical procedures, 3) overestimation of the group, 4) closed-mindedness, and 5) pressures toward uniformity (Shafer and Crichlow, 1996). They argue that these five antecedent conditions are closely related to information processing errors, which in turn lead to faulty decision-making and ultimately groupthink.
While research suggests that information processing is the central element in faulty decision-making, it is also important to examine the group involved in the decision. While studying groupthink, Hart (1998) suggests that it is impossible to have only one standard because there are many different types of groups, especially in the government. Though the intent of Janis was to develop a theory that would explain the negative outcomes of all groups, Hart suggests that there are primarily three different types of groups within the government and they all view policymaking differently. Therefore, before a group can be labeled as experiencing groupthink, the intent of the group has to be evaluated, according to their governmental perspective. The three different policy making perspective views are: 1) policy making as problem solving, 2) Policy making as value articulation and adjudication, and 3) Policymaking as Institutionalized action (Hart, 1998). It is clear that there should be more than one standard of measuring group's outcomes when studying government groups.
It is reasonable to suggest that there should be multiple standards when evaluating group performance, but the structure of the group is also a factor in the type of decision-making that occurs within the group. If there is not a clear structure of how the groups will make decisions such as Dewey's reflective thinking model or the revised model known as the Standard Agenda, a group will be less likely to make good decisions. Whyte (1998) agrees that if the structure of the group is faulty, the group will more likely make a bad decision. He also adds the faulty structure can come in the form of dysfunctional administration practices, the leader's perception of the group and its goals, the track record of the group, and the fact that some group members are comparable to one another in terms of achievements. 
While scholars debate the causes and consequences of faulty structure as it applies to different types of groups, they also disagree about how cohesion is operationalized. It is important to review the many different definitions employed by researchers when referring to cohesion. Cohesion is seen as: "the psychological closeness a group's members feel toward one another" (Scheerhorn & Geist, 1997, p. 88). Shaw (1971) says three different meanings have been attached to explain cohesion. 1) Morale, 2) attraction to the group, 3) coordination of efforts of group members (p. 213). Cartwright, (1968) says cohesiveness is "the resultant of all forces acting on all the members to remain in the group"(p. 92). Pavitt and Curtis (1994) see cohesive groups as having a "we-ness", a feeling of friendship, loyalty, and high morale (p. 63). Some see cohesion as the "glue" that holds a group together (Lumsden and Lumsden, 1997, p. 125-126). Rothwell cites cohesion as "the degree of liking members have for each other and the group and the commitment to the group that this liking engenders, is the result primarily of attention to social relationships." (p. 62). Some scholars define cohesion as the ability to get along with other group members (Ellis and Fisher, 1994, p. 23). Still others operationalize cohesion as simply "common bonds" (Brilhart & Galanes, 1998, p. 150). Cohesion is "the shared perception of and attachment to the group by its members" (Renz and Greg, 2000, p. 53).
Janis does not provide a specific definition of cohesion in his articulation of groupthink. However, he does refer to Lewin's definition of cohesion as "members' positive valuation of the group and their motivation to continue to belong to it (as cited in Janis, p. 4). Janis also refers to Leon Festinger, Harold Kelley, Stanley Schachter, and other social psychologists in his work. Since the interpretation of cohesion is left to the person evaluating the group, it is difficult to say that all are using the same criteria and this could be the major flaw in Janis' theory of groupthink. 
Several studies have been conducted to examine groupthink. Yet much of the research tends to be anecdotal and done in hindsight (e.g., Bay of Pigs, 1961; Pearl Harbor, 1941; Vietnam War, 1964). Also, these were all picked as examples after negative outcomes had occurred. While this research does not question the presence of groupthink – intuitive evidence suggests that ineffective leadership and low cohesion (rather than high levels of cohesion) are likely to lead to groupthink.
There are many conflicting ideas about what really happens when groups make bad decisions and many do not follow the idea proposed by Janis. They do not necessarily disagree with Janis, but they all agree that there are things not being looked at when labeling groups' processing outcomes as Groupthink. There were several underlying themes about what needed to be looked at when using Groupthink, but they can be summed up into three categories of cohesion, leadership, and critical thinking.
The current study recasts the theory of groupthink as a consequence of ineffective leadership rather than cohesion. A new theoretical framework (see Figure 1) is presented that examines leadership, cohesion, and critical thinking, as well as both positive and negative outcomes. Cohesion, as it turns out, is not the problem—quite the opposite. Cohesion is the direct result of effective leadership that produces optimal levels of critical thinking and solves the problem of groupthink.
-----------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 About Here
-------------------------------------
Alternative Theoretical Framework
Leadership
One fundamental flaw of groupthink is the lack of attention paid to the leadership within the group. Janis himself says, "Sometimes the main trouble is that the chief executive manipulates his advisers to rubber-stamp his own ill-conceived proposals", he further adds that groupthink looks at a subtle form of faulty leadership (Janis, p. 3). Other scholars agree that leadership within the group has a direct effect on the group's actions. It is impossible to accurately evaluate a group's performance without looking at the leadership within the group. Not only is it important to look at the leadership within the group, it is important to look at how the leader gets put in that role. 
All of the examples Janis provides when illustrating groupthink deal with the government. Consequently, all of the group leaders were appointed. When a group is put together, the leader needs to emerge from within. It is important to have emergent leaders because appointed leaders usually fail. Hackman and Johnson (1996) suggest that group leaders emerge and be selected by the method of residues. Poole (1983) argues that emergent leaders are more respected and have more leniency in the group than appointed leaders (p. 340). This is only logical, because people like to have a say in who they put in charge of the group. 
When an effective leader has emerged within the group, the group is more likely to be cohesive. Leaders do not have to be emergent to be effective, however, it is unlikely to assume that all appointed leaders will be effective. When a group leader emerges, they have done so by proving to the other group members that they are capable of leading the group effectively. Once a group leader has emerged by the end of the forming phase, the group will be ready to move towards cohesion. 
Cohesion
In as much as groupthink relies heavily on the central element of cohesion, it is appropriate that a more specific operationalization of cohesion be employed. There are many different interpretations of cohesion or what cohesiveness is and that is very problematic when trying to identify groupthink. If it is not known what cohesion is, how can we correctly identify groupthink. 
This study offers the following definition of cohesion that can be used to evaluate a group's performance. Cohesive groups will have many or all of these qualities to some degree: an effective leader, a genuine respect for each other and their opinions, an environment that is not intimidating, an environment where opinions are shared willingly and openly, equal power among group members, shared time outside of the group context between group members, a "WE" atmosphere, usage of positive conflict management styles, a clear set of expectations of the group by each member, a common group goal, shared meaning of what the group is among all group members, each member realizes a personal stake in the outcomes of the groups decisions, each member is accountable for their actions within the group, each member is personally responsible for the decisions made by the group, there is an external threat upon the group. If a group is evaluated using this definition of cohesion, it would be possible to call them "cohesive."
Critical Thinking
If critical thinking is not taking place, is there really a decision that is being made or is it just an idea that someone got everyone to agree with. What determines effective leadership is debatable, but it is asserted that the leader is responsible for making the group pursue an effective decision making process (Meyers, 1999). An effective leader however, will follow a systematic method of decision-making in group meetings. This will ensure that alternative solutions are posed and adequately considered. Groups will make good decisions if they are given a model to follow when evaluating information. 
An effective leader will consider the following before calling a group meeting: 1) Determine if a meeting is necessary before calling people together, 2) Have a clear agenda, 3) Maintain focus on the agenda throughout the meeting, 4) Listen to others, and 5) Involve all participants. If there is proper means for calling a group meeting, then the group will use a systematic process for evaluating information.
Perhaps the most notable model for critical thinking is Dewey's reflective thinking model (1910). Since its inception different modifications have been made, and one that is recognizable is the Standard Agenda. The Standard Agenda is a efficient process to employ when evaluating information as a group makes a decision. When groups use a systematic procedure they can reduce the possibility of bad decisions.
Discussions that follow some systematic procedure tend to be more productive and result in better decisions than do relatively unstructured discussions (Hirokawa, 1985, Shultz, 1995). The Standard Agenda establishes six steps for a group to follow when making a decision: 1) problem identification, 2) problem analysis, 3) solution criteria, 4) solution suggestions, 5) solution evaluation, and 6) solution implementation. If a group follows all six steps of the Standard Agenda they will be more likely to make a good decision. This is not to be confused with a positive outcome, though the probability is high that achieving such an outcome using a systematic process of decision-making will occur. 
Effective group decision-making requires an analysis and understanding of a problem before members search for solutions (Hirokowa, 1983). Effective decision-making groups normally engage in creative exploration of unusual, even deviant, ideas during initial discussions. (Bormann and Bormann, 1988). When Janis chose his examples of groupthink, none of the groups exhibited the Standard Agenda model or any other critical thinking process to make sure that the group would not make bad decisions. This may not be the answer, but it does raise the question. However, it is important to keep in mind that just because a group follows a set of systematic steps will not automatically lead the group to making good decisions. The decisions rely heavily on the group's effort to making a good decision
( Gouran, 1982).
Groupthink
Recall that Janis (1972, 1983) originally defined groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action" (9). Groupthink does occur within groups. However, it does not happen in highly cohesive groups. Groupthink takes place when the groups have low levels of cohesiveness, and consequently ineffective leadership. The original definition of groupthink would acceptable if the word cohesive was eliminated. Groups who let their strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of actions are members who do not care about the group, or the consequences of the group's decision. In-groups can experience groupthink, but groupthink can only occur when critical thinking does not happen. All previous examples of groupthink fail to offer suggestive evidence that critical thinking occurs; therefore groupthink could be labeled as the cause of the bad decisions. At the same time, Janis offered neither effective leaders nor a systematic structure of evaluating information in any of his representative examples. 
Outcomes
Just because groups have effective leaders and use a systematic method of group decision-making does not mean they will always have positive outcomes. Furthermore, just as Janis notes, groups experiencing groupthink will not always have negative outcomes. It is highly probable that groups with effective leaders and high levels of cohesion will make decisions that provide positive outcomes. Likewise, groups experiencing groupthink have a greater likelihood of making decisions that lead to negative outcomes. It is important to understand this concept because, though this study suggests what a group can do to make good decisions with positive outcomes, it does not ensure those practices will happen.
The theory of groupthink offers one way to evaluate a group's decision, which will, more than likely, lead to negative outcomes. However, Janis did not fully explicate clearly the role of cohesion with respect to negative outcomes. The current study asserts that leadership and critical thinking are better predictors of groupthink than high levels of cohesion. Instead of citing cohesive members as the determinant of groupthink (and ultimately the cause of bad decisions) this study posits that groupthink occurs because of ineffective leadership and tests an alternative model that attempts to explain both positive and negative outcomes of group processing. Thus, the following research question is posed:
RQ1: Does ineffective leadership better explain groupthink than high levels of cohesion.
Additionally, the following research hypotheses are advanced to test the alternative theoretical framework.
RH1: There is a positive relationship between effective leadership and cohesion.
RH2: There is a negative relationship between cohesion and groupthink
RH3: There is a positive relationship between cohesion and critical thinking.
RH4: There is a negative relationship between groupthink and critical thinking.
RH5: There is a negative relationship between groupthink and effective leadership.
Method
The subjects for this study were 81 students enrolled in three small group communication classes at a large urban university in the southeastern United States. The study consisted of 33 males and 48 females with ages ranging from 18-26. 51% of the students were 18-20, 41% were 21-23, and 9% were 24-26 years old. 38% of the students were communications majors, 6% were business majors, 12% were education majors, and 43% indicated "other" on the survey. The participants in the study were selected from three different sections of the small group communication class, each taught using team learning as the instructional strategy (Michaelsen, Fink, & Black, 1996, Lane, 1996). Students were randomly assigned to one of five groups by the professor at the beginning of the semester. Students could not change teams and remained in their assigned team for the duration of the semester. The subjects were asked to complete a survey (see Appendix A) at the beginning of class. The survey was conducted on the last official day of class for all of the students. 
In order to test the alternative theoretical model, the survey was designed to measure four major variables: leadership, cohesion, critical thinking, and groupthink. The subjects answered the survey using a standardized Scantron sheet. The variables were measured using a four point Likert scale corresponding with letters A, B, C, and D. Point values were distributed as follows: A=4, B=3, C=2, and D=1. Questions 1-5 were demographic to explain who was completing the survey. Question 6 was a single item scale measuring the group member's perceived cohesion. Questions 7-18 were a cohesion scale developed by the researcher. Questions 19-23 were a psychological cohesion scale created by Koys and DeCotiis (1991). Questions 24-30 measured symptoms of groupthink present within the group. Questions 31and 33 identified whether or not there was a clear leader present at all times within the group. Questions 32 and 34-37 measured leadership within the group. Questions 38- 46 measured the critical thinking that occurs within the group. To eliminate response bias on the survey, questions 7, 12, 14, 25, 27, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, and 46 were reverse coded. 
Composite scales were created to measure the four major variables of the alternative framework model: cohesion, leadership, critical thinking and groupthink. 
Cohesion
Three different cohesion scores were employed in the study measure cohesion: a psychological scale (questions 19-23; a=.86) developed by Koys and DeCotiis (1991), a single item (question 6) measuring the member's perceived cohesion, and an alternative scale (questions 7-18) was created by the researcher based on the new conceptualization of cohesion. Questions 7-9, and 13 were eliminated from the analysis to ensure the highest possible overall alpha for the new cohesions scale (a=.86).
Leadership
The leadership scale (questions 32, and 34-37) was designed largely using qualities that an effective leader would exhibit to other group members. The resulting Cronbach's reliability coefficient was a=.85. Two questions (31 and 33) were designed to evaluate the presence of one leader in the group. Reliability for the one leader scale was computed using Cronbach's coefficient alpha that resulted in a reliability coefficient of a=. 80. 
Critical Thinking
The critical thinking scale was derived from Dewey's reflective thinking model. The reflective thinking model is commonly referred to as the Standard Agenda. Questions were designed to tap the six steps that a group will go through when using the Standard Agenda. Ten questions (26, 38, 40-42, 45, and 46) were used in the final composite measure of critical thinking which yielded a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of a=. 81.
Groupthink 
The groupthink scale was created by carefully examining the symptoms of groupthink as defined by Janis (1972). Questions were designed to determine if the symptoms of groupthink exist within the test group. Seven questions (24-30) were used to create a composite scale to measure the presence of groupthink symptoms within the group. A principle components factor analysis was computed to determine factor purity of the groupthink scale. Questions 25, 26, 27, and 30 were eliminated from the original set and the resulting 3-item groupthink scale produced a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of a=. 81. 
Results
The data supported the research question and each of the five research hypotheses. Hypothesis one confirmed a statistically significant positive correlation between leadership and cohesion [r=.513, p=.000]. When effective leadership is present within the group, the group is more likely to be cohesive. Hypothesis two confirmed a statistically significant negative correlation between cohesion and groupthink [r=-.350, p= .000]. Hypothesis three was also confirmed. A statistically significant positive correlation exists between cohesion and critical thinking [r=. 464, p= .000]. Hypothesis four confirmed a statistically significant negative correlation between groupthink and critical thinking [r= -. 253, p=. 02]. Hypothesis five additionally confirmed a statistically significant negative correlation between groupthink and leadership [r=-.322, p= .004].
Discussion
The new theoretical framework provides a better explanation of negative outcomes in small groups than does Janis' groupthink. It attempted to sort out factors that led groups to making bad decisions. The study provided empirical data that was statistically significant and showed a negative correlation between cohesion and groupthink. For years, researchers have agreed with Janis and have suggested that highly cohesive groups are likely to experience groupthink and make decisions with negative outcomes. However, this study presents evidence to suggest that no such relationship exists between cohesion and groupthink. Janis' model of groupthink should be scrutinized and tested in various contexts—better yet, it should be replaced with the new conceptualization offered in this study. The new model offers a proper explanation of how a group will experience groupthink. It can now be argued that groupthink occurs only when two factors are present: an ineffective leader and lack of cohesion. At no other time can a group experience groupthink.
Groupthink will occur in groups where an ineffective leader is present. This is because an ineffective leader will do two things: 1) not make an effort to make the group cohesive, and 2) not make sure that information is critically evaluated. Groupthink could very well happen all of the time, Only an ineffective leader would allow every group member to "agree" on a solution before critical examination of the problem has occurred. If an effective leader is present within a group, s/he will ensure that the group experiences cohesion and that critical thinking occurs within the group. If, for some reason, a cohesive group does not want to use a systematic process to evaluate alternatives, an effective leader will terminate the process. This is seen in many instances in the classroom and the workplace. If the group is not being productive, or group members are not willing to put fourth the effort required to make a decision, an effective leader will give them a break, send them home, or do something to make sure that a bad decision is not made.
However, if a group is cohesive it is very unlikely that this will happen because of their vested interest in the group. When members are in a cohesive group, they realize that their personal actions have a direct affect on all other group members. This does not happen in groups that are experiencing groupthink, because those members could care less about the group as a whole. Unless, the members of the group are cohesive they will not strive to make sure the group makes good decisions.
The results of this study suggest that groups with effective leaders will be more likely to participate in critical thinking. This study presents the Standard Agenda as one of many alternatives that would allow a group to critically evaluate information. Effective leaders have a strong influence on the group, but they do not have to do everything in the group. An effective leader will help other group members create a shared vision of the group and what it should accomplish on any given day. However, if the group does not sufficiently progress through a systematic process, it is the responsibility of the group leader to recognize the shortfalls and correct them before the group proceeds. This may result in extra work for the leader, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the entire group.
The current study also concludes that groups with ineffective leadership would be less cohesive. This makes intuitive sense because an ineffective leader will most likely have an ineffective group. It is equally noteworthy to concede that just because a group has an ineffective leader does not guarantee that critical thinking and positive outcomes cannot occur. It is improbable that ineffective leaders will promote efficient group processing that will lead to a positive outcome; but it is possible. The individual members of the groups would have a direct reflection on what processes happened in the group. 
The new theoretical framework tested in this study offers clear explanations of how, and under what circumstances, groups experience groupthink. At the same time, it offers suggestions about how a group can ensure high quality positive outcomes. Finally, the current study has developed several new scales to measure the different variables salient to groupthink. For all of the strengths of the current study, however, there are limitations.
First, the sample consisted exclusively of college students. While this sample may not be representative of the larger societal population, the results are applicable to all groups. A second limitation of the current research resulted from the small sample size (81 subjects in 15 groups). Additional subjects would increase the statistical power of the results. The study presents compelling evidence to recast groupthink as a consequence of ineffective leadership. Cohesion is not the problem. Cohesion is the solution to ensure critical thinking and positive group outcomes.

Figure Caption 

Figure 1. Alternative Theoretical Framework.
 
 

Please answer the following questions on the answer sheet that has been supplied. Answer the following questions about the group that you are with currently in COM 281.

1. What is the number assigned to your group? 
(A) 1 (B) 2 (C) 3 (D) 4 (E) 5
2. What is your gender? 
(A) Male (B) Female
3. What is your age? 
(A) 18-20 (B) 21-23 (C) 24-26 (D) 27 or older
4. What is your major? 
(A) Communications (B) Business (C) Education (D) Other
5. How long has your group been together? 
(A) Less than 2 weeks (B) 2-4 weeks (C) 4-6 weeks (D) 6-8 weeks (E) 8 weeks or longer

Answer the following questions with the scale below:

(A) Strongly agree (B) Agree (C) Disagree (D) Strongly disagree

6. My group is cohesive
7. I will go along with my group's decision even if I disagree in order to avoid conflict. 
8. I am comfortable expressing my opinions in my group.
9. I will offer an opinion even though it may offend or contradict another group member.
10. I consider my group members to be my friends
11. I have interacted with my group outside of the group context.
12. I do not enjoy being around my group members. 
13. My group has been in several arguments.
14. After arguments my group members and myself are no longer friends. 
15. I feel comfortable sharing personal details about my life with my group members.
16. I feel comfortable sharing intimate details about myself with group members.
17. I have fun in my group.
18. There is a "WE" atmosphere with my group.
19. In my group people pitch in to help each other out.
20. In my group people tend to get along with each other.
21. In my group people take a personal interest in one another.
22. There is a lot of "team spirit" among the group members.
23. I feel like I have a lot in common with my group members.
24. One member within the group makes all of the decisions.
25. My group invites outside expertise when evaluating a problem. 
26. My group has a defined goal that we are working towards.
27. My group members and I do not have equal power within the group. 
28. My group does not look at alternatives (good or bad) before deciding which way to proceed.
29. As a group we always go with the first solution that is proposed.
30. My group cannot make a bad decision.
31. There is a definite leader in my group.
32. The group leader does not listen to everyone in the group. 
33. Although the leader role may change in the group, there is one clear leader at all times.

Answer the following questions with the scale below:

(A) Strongly agree (B) Agree (C) Disagree (D) Strongly disagree

34. Our leader does not let the minority opinion in the group be heard. 
35. Our leader makes sure that we explore alternatives before the group makes a decision.
36. Our group leader of the group makes sure that all members are heard.
37. The leader of the group makes me feel inferior during group discussions. 
38. My group identifies the problem before we start to look at answers.
39. Our leader will push a decision through, even if the group is not being productive. 
40. My group does not gather facts or try to determine how serious the problem is when it is identified. 
41. My group establishes clear criteria for evaluating solutions before solution are even discussed.
42. My group brainstorms together trying to identify all possible solutions.
43. My group does not evaluate possible solutions until the brainstorming has stopped.
44. There is always a "devil's advocate" point of view raised when evaluating possible solutions.
45. My group implements the decisions that we make.
46. My group does not consider each solution in terms of the criteria that was established by the group.