Collaborative Problem Solving Quotes

Truth springs from argument amongst friends.

All of us try to persuade our fellow citizens to see our point of view and that is the way public opinion is created in a democracy. It seems to me, however, we might achieve our aim with a little less violent invective and blackening of the individual character, for on both sides motives are probably good. The real difference is in the methods that are advocate.

I have disagreements with leadership, I have disagreements with the speaker, but I have those one-on-one.

If you have a problem and you can't find a solution, you meet again tomorrow and you keep talking until you find a solution. You can disagree with behavior or a particular position, but you do not resort to calling an opponent worthless.

By criticizing, we do not make lasting changes and often incur resentment.

Government is truly beginning to embrace the power of innovation for the people and by the people, the idea that if government collaborates openly with and unleashes the ingenuity of the public, it will get much more done, much faster and at much lower cost than if government acted alone.

If I'm with people who are really positive and go with the flow, that's when the best ideas come out for me.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal-cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mind-set. Such a mind-set acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times

If I had a row with my husband, it's not going to work my saying, 'Right, if you don't do what I want, I'm going to walk out.' It doesn't work on any level. What you do is you go in and you say, 'I have a problem. You have a problem. Let's try and sort this out together.' You don't come to an agreement with people who you're falling out with badly.

I have a very Socratic approach - I pummel the designers with questions, so when I get them to step back from the work and look at it with me, they'll eventually see what I see, coming to it fresh and unencumbered. That's always very gratifying because they feel a responsibility and an ownership of a solution.

We can be more clever than one, but not more clever than all.

If you are trying to get people to work on a problem together, it's best if they don't know where you, as the supervisor/manager, stand on the question.

I'm someone who does not like a bunker mentality and does not like groupthink.

Why cannot we sit down together with a board of arbitration, honestly state our difficulties and try to work out a sane method of procedure?

If you want to influence people, you want them to accept your suggestions, you don't say, 'You don't know how to use the English language,' or 'How could you make that argument?' It will be welcomed much more if you have a gentle touch than if you are aggressive.

I've certainly seen R&D groups, typically funded by large corporations, where they bring together a lot of smart people and nothing happens. And the reason nothing happens is that they don't have a clear goal.

One of the things I learned very early on was that if you cast the show correctly, and if you've created the right energy in the room, the solution is also in the room. The solution doesn't necessarily come from someone, but if everybody is working in a very steadfast and rigorous way, then everything you're looking for is in the room.

Politicians wishing to set a better tone should have the discipline to avoid televised cage matches.

We can arrive at better solutions to any problem or pain together, than we can by ourselves. The beauty of the modern age is that you are able to source answers, and sometimes the genius is in the combination of ideas and energy that does not reside in only one person.

You need people who have their own views, whose views you respect, whom you can have a productive disagreement with, and work out ideas which you might not have come up with, or who improve on ideas you had.

To have an idea meritocracy, one needs to do three things. First, they have to put their honest thoughts on the table, for everyone to look at and everyone to work through. Second, they need to have thoughtful disagreement, by which there are quality exchanges, in which there's open mindedness and the realization that no one has all the right answers. And you can work through that and get to better answers because good collective decision making is better than any individual decision making. And third, you have to have ways of getting past the disagreements if they remain.

Meet regularly with your business team and brainstorm. Intricate business problems are mostly resolved at brainstorming sessions.

I've actually come to respect the most irritatingly challenging people I've worked with as really valuable in improving group decision-making and what to do and what to invest in.

Whenever we had a serious question to decide, we had a conference with the groups involved.

I like it when an actor is secure enough to ask questions, and the director is secure enough not to be threatened by that.