Question 1

Explain some difficulties that can occur with each step in the rational problem-solving model.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Explain some difficulties that can occur with...

Question 2

When an individual becomes consistent in how he or she approaches problems, he or she is practicing which conceptual block?

Accepted Answer

A)  Commitment 
B)  Compression 
C)  Constancy 
D)  Complacency

Question 3

Brainstorming is only effective when it occurs in a face-to-face group setting.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 4

Which should you do when evaluating alternatives?

Accepted Answer

A)  Evaluate alternatives relative to a satisfactory standard 
B)  Evaluate alternatives in an unstructured and creative manner 
C)  Evaluate alternatives based on what will work 
D)  Evaluate alternatives in terms of individual preferences and organizational goals

Question 5

If I am the person who generates the innovative solution, which role would I most likely play on a creative problem-solving team?

Accepted Answer

A)  Idea champion 
B)  Sponsor 
C)  Orchestrator 
D)  Rule breaker

Question 6

Your boss remarks to you that "decision making is concerned with the discovery and selection of satisfactory alternatives." What would be the best response to your boss?

Accepted Answer

A)  "No, I believe decision making is concerned with proper problem definition." 
B)  "No, I believe decision making is concerned with the generation of alternatives." 
C)  "No, I believe decision making is concerned with the discovery and selection of optimal alternatives." 
D)  "Yes, I agree."

Question 7

Which type of creativity focuses on fast, competitive responses to problems?

Accepted Answer

A)  Imagination 
B)  Improvement 
C)  Investment 
D)  Incubation

Question 8

Which type of creativity focuses on new, revolutionary solutions to problems?

Accepted Answer

A)  Imagination 
B)  Improvement 
C)  Investment 
D)  Incubation

Question 9

One of the most common blocks to creativity involves a person becoming so committed to a particular point of view that they fail to identify themes that link the problem to other related areas of knowledge. Which of the following describes this phenomenon?

Accepted Answer

A)  Morphological synthesis 
B)  Perceptual stereotyping 
C)  Ignoring commonalities 
D)  Synectics

Question 10

How both the microwave and Post-it Notes came to be produced are excellent examples of which problem-solving model?

Accepted Answer

A)  Analytical problem solving 
B)  Creative problem solving 
C)  Synectic problem solving

Question 11

When defining the problem, top priority should be placed on identifying all the underlying symptoms of the problem.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 12

The principle of compression is a key technique to unlocking an individual's creative potential.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 13

Conceptual blocks are mental obstacles that constrain the way problems are defined and that limit the number of alternative solutions thought to be relevant.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 14

Admiral Kimmel's Failure at Pearl Harbor
 In the summer of 1941, as relations between the United States and Japan were rapidly deteriorating, Admiral Kimmel, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, received many warnings concerning the imminence of war. During this period, he worked out a plan in collaboration with his staff at Pearl Harbor, which gave priority to training key personnel and supplying basic equipment to U.S. outposts in the Far East. The plan took account of the possibility of a long, hard war with Japan and the difficulties of mobilizing scarce resources in manpower and material. At that time, Admiral Kimmel and his staff were keenly aware of the risks of being unprepared for war with Japan, as well as the high costs and risks involved in preparing for war. They appear to have been relatively optimistic about being able to develop a satisfactory military plan and about having sufficient time in which to implement it. In short, all the conditions were present for vigilance, and it seems likely that this coping pattern characterized their planning activity.
 During the late fall of 1941, as warnings became increasingly more ominous, a different pattern of coping behavior emerged. Admiral Kimmel and his staff continued to cling to the policy to which they had committed themselves, discounting each fresh warning and failing to note that more and more signs were pointing to Pearl Harbor as a possible target for a surprise air attack. They repeatedly renewed their decision to continue using the available resources primarily for training green sailors and soldiers and for supplying bases close to Japan, rather than instituting an adequate alert that would give priority to defending Pearl Harbor against enemy attack.
 Knowing that neither their own sector nor the rest of the U.S. military organization was ready for a shooting war, they clung to an unwarranted set of rationalizations. The Japanese, they thought, would not launch an attack against any American possession; and if by some remote chance they decided to do so, it certainly wouldn't be at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Kimmel and his staff acknowledged that Japan could launch a surprise attack in any direction, but remained convinced that it would not be launched in their direction. They saw no reason to change their course. Therefore, they continued to give peacetime weekend leave to the majority of the naval forces in Hawaii and allowed the many warships in the Pacific Fleet to remain anchored at Pearl Harbor, as sitting ducks. Kimmel regularly discussed each warning with members of his staff. At times, he became emotionally aroused and obtained reassurance from the members of his in-group. He shared with them a number of rationalizations that bolstered his decision to ignore the warnings. On November 27, 1941, for example, he received an explicit "war warning" from the chief of naval operations in Washington, which stirred up his concern but did not impel him to take any new protective action. This message was intended as a strong follow-up to an earlier warning, which Kimmel had received only three days earlier, stating that war with Japan was imminent and that "a surprise aggressive movement in any direction, including attack on the Philippines or Guam, is a possibility." The new warning asserted that "an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days" and instructed Kimmel to "execute appropriate defensive deployment" preparatory to carrying out the naval war plan.
 The threat conveyed by this warning was evidently strong enough to induce Kimmel to engage in prolonged discussion with his staff about what should be done. But their vigilance seems to have been confined to paying careful attention to the way the warning was worded. During the meeting, members of the staff pointed out to Kimmel that Hawaii was not specifically mentioned as a possible target in either of the two war warnings, whereas other places-the Philippines, Malaya, and other remote areas-were explicitly named. Kimmel went along with the interpretation that the ambiguities they had detected in the wording must have meant that Pearl Harbor was not supposed to be regarded as a likely target, even though the message seemed to be saying that it was. The defensive quality that entered into this judgment is revealed by the fact that Kimmel made no effort to use his available channels of communication in Washington to find out what really had been meant. He ended up agreeing with the members of his advisory group that there was no chance of a surprise air attack on Hawaii at that particular time.
 Because he judged Pearl Harbor not to be vulnerable, Kimmel decided that the limited-alert condition that had been instituted months earlier would be sufficient. He assumed, however, that all U.S. Army units in Hawaii had gone on full alert in response to this war warning, so that antiaircraft and radar units under Army control would be fully activated. But, again, reflecting his defensive lack of interest in carrying out tasks that required acknowledging the threat, Kimmel failed to inquire of Army headquarters exactly what was being done. As a result, he did not discover until after the disaster on December 7 that the Army, too, was on only limited alert, designed exclusively to protect military installations against local sabotage.
 On December 3, 1941, Kimmel engaged in intensive discussion with two members of his staff upon receiving a fresh warning from naval headquarters in Washington stating that U.S. cryptographers had decoded a secret message from Tokyo to all diplomatic missions in the United States and other countries, ordering them to destroy their secret codes. Kimmel realized that this type of order could mean that Japan was making last-minute preparations before launching an attack against the United States. Again, he and his advisors devoted considerable attention to the exact wording of this new, worrisome warning. They made much of the fact that the dispatch said "most" of the codes but not "all." They concluded that the destruction of the codes should be interpreted as a routine precautionary measure and not as a sign that Japan was planning to attack an American possession. Again, no effort was made to find out from Washington how the intelligence units there interpreted the message. But the lengthy discussions and the close attention paid to the wording of these messages imply that they did succeed in at least temporarily inducing decisional conflict.
 By December 6, 1941, the day before the attack, Kimmel was aware of a large accumulation of extremely ominous signs. In addition to receiving the official war warnings during the preceding week, he had received a private letter three days earlier from Admiral Stark in Washington stating that both President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Hull now thought that the Japanese were getting ready to launch a surprise attack. Then, on December 6, Kimmel received another message from Admiral Stark containing emergency war orders pertaining to the destruction of secret and confidential documents in American bases on outlying Pacific islands. On that same day, the FBI in Hawaii informed Kimmel that the local Japanese consulate had been burning its papers for the last two days. Furthermore, Kimmel's chief naval intelligence officer had reported to him that day, as he had on the preceding days, that despite fresh efforts to pick up Japanese naval signal calls, the whereabouts of all six of Japan's aircraft carriers still remained a mystery. (U.S. Naval Combat Intelligence had lost track of the Japanese aircraft carriers in mid-November, when they started to move toward Hawaii for the planned attack on Pearl Harbor.)
 Although the various warning signs, taken together, clearly indicated that Japan was getting ready to launch an attack against the United States, they remained ambiguous as to exactly where the attack was likely to be. There was also considerable "noise" mixed in with the warning signals, including intelligence reports that huge Japanese naval forces were moving toward Malaya. But, inexplicably, there was a poverty of imagination on the part of Kimmel and his staff with regard to considering the possibility that Pearl Harbor itself might be one of the targets of a Japanese attack.
 The accumulated warnings, however, were sufficiently impressive to Kimmel to generate considerable concern. On the afternoon of December 6, as he was pondering alternative courses of action, he openly expressed his anxiety to two of his staff officers. He told them he was worried about the safety of the fleet at Pearl Harbor in view of all the disturbing indications that Japan was getting ready for a massive attack somewhere. One member of the staff immediately reassured him that "the Japanese could not possibly be able to proceed in force against Pearl Harbor when they had so much strength concentrated in their Asiatic operations." Another told him that the limited-alert condition he had ordered many weeks earlier would certainly be sufficient and nothing more was needed. "We finally decided," Kimmel subsequently recalled, "that what we had [already] done was still good and we would stick to it." At the end of the discussion, Kimmel "put his worries aside" and went off to a dinner party.
Source: Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. 1977 by the Free Press. Reprinted with the permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon and Schuster.
-How could Kimmel and his advisors better evaluate and select alternative solutions to the problem of uncertainty about possible attack?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Admiral Kimmel's Failure at Pearl Harbor
 In...

Question 15

A manager of a shipping department was concerned about an order that a customer reported as several weeks late. To define the problem, the manager asked an employee in the shipping department why the order had not arrived. The employee said, "Someone probably made a mistake on the address. That would be my guess." Thus, the manager asked the employee to reship the order. What characteristic of good problem definition is most violated by this manager?

Accepted Answer

A)  The problem factual information should be differentiated from opinion or speculation. 
B)  The problem should be stated explicitly. 
C)  The problem definition should be different than a disguised solution. 
D)  The problem definition should be written down.

Question 16

If you defer judgment, expand current alternatives, and combine unrelated attributes during creative problem solving, what are you doing?

Accepted Answer

A)  Improving the problem definition 
B)  Elaborating on the problem definition 
C)  Generating more alternatives 
D)  Incubating the problem

Question 17

Admiral Kimmel's Failure at Pearl Harbor
 In the summer of 1941, as relations between the United States and Japan were rapidly deteriorating, Admiral Kimmel, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, received many warnings concerning the imminence of war. During this period, he worked out a plan in collaboration with his staff at Pearl Harbor, which gave priority to training key personnel and supplying basic equipment to U.S. outposts in the Far East. The plan took account of the possibility of a long, hard war with Japan and the difficulties of mobilizing scarce resources in manpower and material. At that time, Admiral Kimmel and his staff were keenly aware of the risks of being unprepared for war with Japan, as well as the high costs and risks involved in preparing for war. They appear to have been relatively optimistic about being able to develop a satisfactory military plan and about having sufficient time in which to implement it. In short, all the conditions were present for vigilance, and it seems likely that this coping pattern characterized their planning activity.
 During the late fall of 1941, as warnings became increasingly more ominous, a different pattern of coping behavior emerged. Admiral Kimmel and his staff continued to cling to the policy to which they had committed themselves, discounting each fresh warning and failing to note that more and more signs were pointing to Pearl Harbor as a possible target for a surprise air attack. They repeatedly renewed their decision to continue using the available resources primarily for training green sailors and soldiers and for supplying bases close to Japan, rather than instituting an adequate alert that would give priority to defending Pearl Harbor against enemy attack.
 Knowing that neither their own sector nor the rest of the U.S. military organization was ready for a shooting war, they clung to an unwarranted set of rationalizations. The Japanese, they thought, would not launch an attack against any American possession; and if by some remote chance they decided to do so, it certainly wouldn't be at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Kimmel and his staff acknowledged that Japan could launch a surprise attack in any direction, but remained convinced that it would not be launched in their direction. They saw no reason to change their course. Therefore, they continued to give peacetime weekend leave to the majority of the naval forces in Hawaii and allowed the many warships in the Pacific Fleet to remain anchored at Pearl Harbor, as sitting ducks. Kimmel regularly discussed each warning with members of his staff. At times, he became emotionally aroused and obtained reassurance from the members of his in-group. He shared with them a number of rationalizations that bolstered his decision to ignore the warnings. On November 27, 1941, for example, he received an explicit "war warning" from the chief of naval operations in Washington, which stirred up his concern but did not impel him to take any new protective action. This message was intended as a strong follow-up to an earlier warning, which Kimmel had received only three days earlier, stating that war with Japan was imminent and that "a surprise aggressive movement in any direction, including attack on the Philippines or Guam, is a possibility." The new warning asserted that "an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days" and instructed Kimmel to "execute appropriate defensive deployment" preparatory to carrying out the naval war plan.
 The threat conveyed by this warning was evidently strong enough to induce Kimmel to engage in prolonged discussion with his staff about what should be done. But their vigilance seems to have been confined to paying careful attention to the way the warning was worded. During the meeting, members of the staff pointed out to Kimmel that Hawaii was not specifically mentioned as a possible target in either of the two war warnings, whereas other places-the Philippines, Malaya, and other remote areas-were explicitly named. Kimmel went along with the interpretation that the ambiguities they had detected in the wording must have meant that Pearl Harbor was not supposed to be regarded as a likely target, even though the message seemed to be saying that it was. The defensive quality that entered into this judgment is revealed by the fact that Kimmel made no effort to use his available channels of communication in Washington to find out what really had been meant. He ended up agreeing with the members of his advisory group that there was no chance of a surprise air attack on Hawaii at that particular time.
 Because he judged Pearl Harbor not to be vulnerable, Kimmel decided that the limited-alert condition that had been instituted months earlier would be sufficient. He assumed, however, that all U.S. Army units in Hawaii had gone on full alert in response to this war warning, so that antiaircraft and radar units under Army control would be fully activated. But, again, reflecting his defensive lack of interest in carrying out tasks that required acknowledging the threat, Kimmel failed to inquire of Army headquarters exactly what was being done. As a result, he did not discover until after the disaster on December 7 that the Army, too, was on only limited alert, designed exclusively to protect military installations against local sabotage.
 On December 3, 1941, Kimmel engaged in intensive discussion with two members of his staff upon receiving a fresh warning from naval headquarters in Washington stating that U.S. cryptographers had decoded a secret message from Tokyo to all diplomatic missions in the United States and other countries, ordering them to destroy their secret codes. Kimmel realized that this type of order could mean that Japan was making last-minute preparations before launching an attack against the United States. Again, he and his advisors devoted considerable attention to the exact wording of this new, worrisome warning. They made much of the fact that the dispatch said "most" of the codes but not "all." They concluded that the destruction of the codes should be interpreted as a routine precautionary measure and not as a sign that Japan was planning to attack an American possession. Again, no effort was made to find out from Washington how the intelligence units there interpreted the message. But the lengthy discussions and the close attention paid to the wording of these messages imply that they did succeed in at least temporarily inducing decisional conflict.
 By December 6, 1941, the day before the attack, Kimmel was aware of a large accumulation of extremely ominous signs. In addition to receiving the official war warnings during the preceding week, he had received a private letter three days earlier from Admiral Stark in Washington stating that both President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Hull now thought that the Japanese were getting ready to launch a surprise attack. Then, on December 6, Kimmel received another message from Admiral Stark containing emergency war orders pertaining to the destruction of secret and confidential documents in American bases on outlying Pacific islands. On that same day, the FBI in Hawaii informed Kimmel that the local Japanese consulate had been burning its papers for the last two days. Furthermore, Kimmel's chief naval intelligence officer had reported to him that day, as he had on the preceding days, that despite fresh efforts to pick up Japanese naval signal calls, the whereabouts of all six of Japan's aircraft carriers still remained a mystery. (U.S. Naval Combat Intelligence had lost track of the Japanese aircraft carriers in mid-November, when they started to move toward Hawaii for the planned attack on Pearl Harbor.)
 Although the various warning signs, taken together, clearly indicated that Japan was getting ready to launch an attack against the United States, they remained ambiguous as to exactly where the attack was likely to be. There was also considerable "noise" mixed in with the warning signals, including intelligence reports that huge Japanese naval forces were moving toward Malaya. But, inexplicably, there was a poverty of imagination on the part of Kimmel and his staff with regard to considering the possibility that Pearl Harbor itself might be one of the targets of a Japanese attack.
 The accumulated warnings, however, were sufficiently impressive to Kimmel to generate considerable concern. On the afternoon of December 6, as he was pondering alternative courses of action, he openly expressed his anxiety to two of his staff officers. He told them he was worried about the safety of the fleet at Pearl Harbor in view of all the disturbing indications that Japan was getting ready for a massive attack somewhere. One member of the staff immediately reassured him that "the Japanese could not possibly be able to proceed in force against Pearl Harbor when they had so much strength concentrated in their Asiatic operations." Another told him that the limited-alert condition he had ordered many weeks earlier would certainly be sufficient and nothing more was needed. "We finally decided," Kimmel subsequently recalled, "that what we had [already] done was still good and we would stick to it." At the end of the discussion, Kimmel "put his worries aside" and went off to a dinner party.
Source: Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. 1977 by the Free Press. Reprinted with the permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon and Schuster.
-Outline the problem-solving steps followed by Kimmel and his advisors. What steps in analytical problem solving were skipped or short-circuited?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Admiral Kimmel's Failure at Pearl Harbor
 In...

Question 18

In studying for a test, Harry always highlights passages in his textbooks and reviews the highlighted sections. Recently, in his Management class, Harry did not receive a good grade on his first exam. Sally suggested that Harry try studying a different way by writing down the highlighted passages on paper. Harry refused, saying, "It has always worked before, why change? " Which conceptual block is Harry experiencing?

Accepted Answer

A)  Constancy 
B)  Artificial constraint 
C)  Compression 
D)  Complacency

Question 19

When it comes to generating innovative ideas, where have many of the most creative ideas come from?

Accepted Answer

A)  Employees 
B)  Managers 
C)  Professors 
D)  Customers

Question 20

You discover that there is an error in your Excel spreadsheet, but you don't know the source of the problem. In sorting out the problem, which problem style would be most appropriate?

Accepted Answer

A)  Creative problem solving 
B)  Analytical problem solving 
C)  Synectic problem solving

Exam 3: Solving Problems Analytically and Creatively

Explain some difficulties that can occur with each step in the rational problem-solving model.

When an individual becomes consistent in how he or she approaches problems, he or she is practicing which conceptual block?

Brainstorming is only effective when it occurs in a face-to-face group setting.

Which should you do when evaluating alternatives?

If I am the person who generates the innovative solution, which role would I most likely play on a creative problem-solving team?

Your boss remarks to you that "decision making is concerned with the discovery and selection of satisfactory alternatives." What would be the best response to your boss?

Which type of creativity focuses on fast, competitive responses to problems?

Which type of creativity focuses on new, revolutionary solutions to problems?

One of the most common blocks to creativity involves a person becoming so committed to a particular point of view that they fail to identify themes that link the problem to other related areas of knowledge. Which of the following describes this phenomenon?

How both the microwave and Post-it Notes came to be produced are excellent examples of which problem-solving model?

When defining the problem, top priority should be placed on identifying all the underlying symptoms of the problem.

The principle of compression is a key technique to unlocking an individual's creative potential.

Conceptual blocks are mental obstacles that constrain the way problems are defined and that limit the number of alternative solutions thought to be relevant.

If you defer judgment, expand current alternatives, and combine unrelated attributes during creative problem solving, what are you doing?

When it comes to generating innovative ideas, where have many of the most creative ideas come from?

You discover that there is an error in your Excel spreadsheet, but you don't know the source of the problem. In sorting out the problem, which problem style would be most appropriate?