PLEASE ONLY ANSER THE QUESTION IN BOLD DOWN BELOW because no one is answering the question right (down below is the summary of the lecture to help answer the actual question)

ACUTAL QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED DOWN BELOW!!

Everyone encounters problems in their lives, some relatively insignificant and others fairly significant. Think about a fairly significant problem that you have had to face in the past and how you went about attempting to deal with it. Then, in your response, explain the problem you faced and (in some detail) describe the process you used in the attempt to come up with a good (or at least an "acceptable" approach to the problem. Did you engage in any type of systematic approach or did you simply jump into it "feet first" in the hope that a good solution would come to you? Why or why not? Did you share your problem with anyone else and ask for advice? Why or why not? Did you go so far as to create a "problem-solving team" aimed at attempting to determine a reasonable strategy for dealing with it? Why or why not? Looking back at the process that you did use, does it appear you used any of the decision-making/problem-solving "tips" offered in Chapter 8 or in our "My Two Cents" area in Brightspace? What was the result of your problem-solving efforts? Did they seem to work, or did they fail? Why do you believe you succeeded/failed?

(down below is the summary of the lecture to help answer the actual question)

Some tips on decision making/problem (opportunity) solving:

Make sure you correctly define the problem that you're facing. John Dewey, the famous educator, once stated, "A problem well defined is already half solved." He was so right. Here's an example: Your company's revenues have been declining recently. A suggestion is made to reduce prices in order to generate increased sales. That might be the answer, but prices that are too high is only of one many possible reasons for your problem. Perhaps it's an issue of poor product quality. Perhaps it's an issue of poor packaging. Perhaps it's an issue of poor promotion. Perhaps your competitors have developed similar products with more benefits. Etc. The point is that, first, you need to determine what the specific problem is.

If you're fortunate enough to be able to determine all your alternatives (which, in truth, doesn't occur all that frequently), then simply evaluate each of them one at a time and select the best alternative (i.e., the one that will solve your problem effectively and efficiently).

Don't make the problem bigger than it is.

Be willing to think out of the box.

Consult your feelings. Freud suggested that after making a decision of importance, it would be wise to wait a day or so before attempting to implement it. If, during and after this time, it feels as if a burden has been lifted from your shoulders, then go with the decision. If, on the other hand, you're still unsure of the wisdom of your decision, revisit the issue (and perhaps select a different alternative).

What are the effects of "group decision making" as opposed to "individual decision making" on each of the following?

the quality of the decision? IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. If the decision you're trying to make (or the problem you're trying to solve, or the potential opportunity you have just become aware of) requires large amounts of independent information and skills, then creating a team to work on this issue is a good idea. On the other hand, if it's a decision (or problem, or opportunity) that requires that "sudden flash of insight" or a great deal of "out-of-the-box," imaginative thing, asking four or five individuals to work on the issue rather than having them work together as a team is likely the better idea. (Please see below for a brief discussion of "creativity" as it relates to group v. individual decision making.)

the creativity of the decision? GROUPS TEND TO MAKE LESS CREATIVE DECISIONS. "Creativity" is a term used to describe how imaginative (out-of-the-box) the proposed "solution" is. Groups tend to make less creative decisions than individuals because, within the group, individuals may consider an imaginative solution but not voice it over fears of being ridiculed or ostracized.

the riskiness of the decision? GROUPS TEND TO MAKE RISKIER DECISIONS. Why? For one thing, they realize that -- if things go wrong -- they have others with whom to share the blame. (While true, the penalties assessed for "things going wrong" are seldom shared. In other words, this is faulty thinking by the group member.) Another reason for which groups tend to make riskier decisions than individuals is that, in a group, if a risky alternative is voiced, the idea gets "bounced around" for a while as the mebes consider it. And the interesting thing about this is that the more the idea is discussed, the less risky is it perceived to be. (Of course, it hasn't actually become less risky. This is another example of faulting thinking by the group members.) Still another reason for this "risky shift" is that our culture tends to look up to people who are willing to take risks, even if sometimes they fail miserably. This sometimes leads to one or more group members voicing quite risky alternatives (ones they would never consider implementing by themselves) because, consciously or subconsciously they believe it will make them "look better" to their group. And, finally, research indicates that individuals who are perceived to be fairly high risk-takers often emerge as leaders of informal groups. SInce group leaders typically have more influence within the group than do the others, the probability of somewhat riskier decisions than the individuals would make by themselves increases (at least within groups whose leader was not selected by the individual who decided to form the group).

the time it takes to make the decision/solve the problem/consider the opportunity? THAT'S A EASY ONE. IT TAKES GROUPS MORE TIME TO MAKE DECISIONS THAN INDIVIDUALS.

the individual satisfactions of the members of the group? IT DEPENDS UPON THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE GROUP WAS TRULY EMPOWERED. If the group members, following their actions and recommendations, believe their recommendations have been looked at closely and carefully considered (even if not implemented), then all is well. If, however, they believe the process was not much more than a sham, and that the individual who created the group was simply seeking a resolution that he or she favored from the outset, then the members of the group will probably feel (correctly) that they wasted their time working on the issue involved simply to allow their boss the opportunity to say that the decision implemented was a group decision that everyone (or almost everyone) agreed upon.