Decision Controversy What is controversy? The decision controversy procedure The role of advocacy subgroups in decision controversy Why use decision controversy? Decision controversy and leading the cooperative school References What Is Controversy? Controversy exists when one person's ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another, and the two seek to reach an agreement (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, 1995). Controversies are an inherent as pect of decision making and problem solving. If individuals get intellectually and emotionally involved in cooperative efforts, controversies will occur no matter what the individuals do. Whether positive or negative outcomes result depends on how effec tively leaders structure the decision-making process. Decision controversy is a procedure that enables groups to make a well-considered, well-understood, realistic choice among actions aimed at goals every member wishes to achieve. A decision implies that some agreement prevails among group members as to which of several courses of action is most desirable for achieving the groups' goals. Administrators and faculty members have to make decisions to solve problems in schools just like engineers, executives, politicians, and judges have to m ake decisions to solve problems in their work settings. Participating in controversies is just as powerful in schools as it is in business, industry, government, and other organizational settings. It is essential for school leaders, therefore, to struct ure decision controversies whenever decisions must be made to solve school-wide problems.   The Decision Controversy Procedure A leader structures decision controversy for school decision making by engaging the faculty in six steps. Those steps are (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, 1995): Establishing A Cooperative Context: In order to engage in a problem-solving procedure the cooperative nature of the school has to be reaffirmed. Faculty members must clearly perceive that they "sink or swim together." Competitors d o not solve problems, they shift blame and point out each other's deficits. In individualistic situations, each person acts on his or her own without regard to or coordination with others. It is only within cooperative situations that individuals make a joint effort to solve a problem. Once the cooperative relationship among faculty members is clearly established, teams are ready to engage in the problem-solving process. Identifying And Defining The Problem: Faculty teams examine the discrepancy between what is actually taking place within the school and what they would like to take place. Diagnosing The Existence, Magnitude, And Nature Of The Problem: Valid information must be gathered about the existence of the problem. Then the information must be thoroughly discussed and analyzed to ensure that all faculty members understand it. Identifying And Analyzing Alternative Courses Of Action To Solve The Problem: Several alternative solutions must be identified and considered in order to find the one that will be maximally effective. A common error in decision-makin g situations is to prematurely decide on the first reasonable alternative that is suggested (that is called satisficing). What decision-making groups are supposed to do is choose the alternative course of action that maximizes their succ ess (that is called maximizing). The faculty must ensure that each alternative gets full consideration and a fair and complete hearing. The only way to ensure that all alternatives are equally considered is to assign each to an advocacy subgroup whose responsibility is to prepare and present to the faculty the best case possible for that alternative. Advocacy subgroups utilize the controversy procedure to do so. Making A Decision About Which Course Of Action To Take To Solve The Problem: The faculty can make the decision through consensus, two-thirds majority vote, a majority vote, or by an executive council (see Johnson & F. Johnson, 1994). Implementing The Solution Chosen And Evaluating Its Success In Solving The Problem: When the faculty makes the decision, the controversy ends and faculty members commit themselves to the course of action they have chosen. If the pro blem is not solved, the procedure is repeated again.   The Role Of Advocacy Subgroups In Decision Controversy The decision controversy procedure uses advocacy subgroups to ensure high quality decision making. An advocacy subgroup consists of two (or three) members who work cooperatively to make sure their assigned alternative course of action receives a fair and complete hearing. Once alternative solutions to the targeted problem have been identified, each alternative is assigned to an advocacy subgroup. The advocacy subgroups then follow the five step controversy procedure to ensure that each alternative is c onsidered thoroughly. Research And Prepare A Position: Each advocacy subgroup researches its position and organizes the evidence found into a persuasive argument for why the position should be adopted. Present The Best Case Possible For Alternative Positions: Each advocacy subgroup presents their position to all groups with the intent of persuading all others of the position's validity. Advocacy is the presenting of a position and providing reasons why it should be adopted. Open Discussion To Refute And Rebut: Advocacy subgroups criticize the other positions and defend their own position from attack. This enables group members to learn the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative course of actio n while continuing to advocate their positions. Perspective Reversal: Group members strive to see the issue from all perspectives simultaneously. Perspective reversal is taking another frame of reference and sincerely and completely presenting that position as if it were one's ow n. Members of each subgroup reverse perspectives by presenting the best case for one of the other alternative courses of action as if it were their own, adding new arguments, facts, and reasons when possible. This ensures that each subgroup listens care fully to the other presentations and comprehends their rationales completely. Synthesize And Decide: Advocacy subgroup members drop all advocacy, step back, strive for objectivity, attempt to see the issue from a variety of perspectives, summarize the best evidence from all sides, create a synthesis of the vari ous positions, and decide what action to take to solve the problem. Synthesis is a creative process that generally results in a group consensus as to what the decision should be. Synthesizing involves (a) putting things together in fewer words, (b) cre ative insight, and (c) creating a new positions that subsumes and unifies the previous ones. Striving for synthesis helps the group make a decision as to what course of action would most effective in solving the problem and achieving the group's goals. The solution is recommended to the entire faculty. Why Use Decision Controversy? There is solid research evidence supporting the use of the controversy procedure to enhance the quality of decision making (Johnson &Johnson, 1989, 1995). Compared to concurrence seeking (when group members reach a decision quickly to avoid conflict), d ebate (when individuals or groups argue a position before a judge who will decide which position is best), or individualistic decision making procedures (when an individual solves a problem alone), the use of the controversy procedure results in higher pr oductivity, greater mastery and retention of ideas, more frequent use of complex reasoning, greater exchange of information, more creativity in problem solving, and higher quality decision making. The controversy procedure also positively impacts interpe rsonal relationships (by resulting in greater liking among group members) and psychological health (by enhancing social competence and self-esteem).   Decision Controversy And Leading The Cooperative School Cooperative schools are built by leaders who (Johnson & Johnson, 1994): Challenge the status quo of the competitive and individualistic practices that dominate traditional schools. Inspire a mutual vision of a team-based, high performance school in which students, faculty, and administrators primarily work in teams. Empower students, faculty, and administrators through teams. Students are empowered by being involved in learning teams, teachers are empowered by being involved in teaching teams and a school-based decision-making process, and administrators are emp owered through collegial administrating teams. The decision controversy procedure is fundamental to successful school-based decision making among faculty members and district-wide decision making among administrators, teachers, parents, and the school bo ard. Lead by example by (a) using cooperative procedures for school-based decision making and faculty meetings and (b) taking risks to improve continuously professional expertise. Encourage the heart of members of the school so they persist and keep striving to improve continuously their expertise. Enabling faculty to successfully solve school problems through the decision controversy procedure contributes to positive morale i n the school.   References Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (1994). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Leading the cooperative school (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995) Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Navigation Home Cooperative Learning Q&A Essays (on home page) About the center (on home page) Newsletters (on home page) Books and supplies Contacting us (by email and otherwise) The U of M College of Education and Human Development The University of Minnesota Etc. Except as noted, the contents of this site are copyright © David and Roger Johnson. About reproduction.