leadership is about collaboration and joint problem solving

Collaborative leadership: What it is and why it works so well for distributed teams

Start collaborating with Mural today

Collaborative leadership is a powerful approach that hinges on teamwork, cooperation, and shared responsibility. At its core, it's about leading by involving everyone, valuing each team member’s input, and working together toward common goals.

In a collaborative leadership scenario, you wouldn’t decide everything alone — instead, you'd gather ideas from everyone involved. The central tenet is that everyone’s input matters, and you’d aim to reach a decision that reflects the collective wisdom and preferences of the group.

Similarly, collaborative leadership means inviting and respecting everyone’s opinions and expertise on company projects and initiatives. It’s not just about ‘the boss’ or one person making decisions. When teams work together, they can use different perspectives, ideas, and strengths to create new solutions.

What is collaborative leadership?

Collaborative leadership means working closely with all team members, regardless of their title or role. Under collaborative leadership, managers value employee contributions equally and make shared decisions.

Leaders who embrace a collaborative leadership style actively encourage team members to share information openly, fostering a culture of transparency and knowledge exchange. They emphasize cooperation, open communication, and collective problem-solving . 

Traditional leadership vs. collaborative leadership

Traditional and hierarchical leadership models generally involve ‌centralized authority and top-down decision-making. 

For instance, imagine a company that uses traditional or hierarchical leadership is considering a restructure of its marketing strategy. The leadership team unilaterally decides on the new marketing approach without input from the marketing team or other departments. The decision is then cascaded down the hierarchy, and employees are expected to execute the strategy with limited involvement in the decision-making process.

Collaborative leadership involves greater inclusivity and shared decision-making responsibilities. 

Think about the same situation above but with a collaborative leadership team: Collaborative leaders invite input from various levels of the organization. The marketing team, along with representatives from sales, customer service, and even junior staff, are involved in brainstorming sessions. Through open dialogue and collaboration, ideas are exchanged, and the team makes a collective decision. 

Core principles of collaborative leadership  

The three main principles of collaborative leadership are: 

• Shared decision-making: Collaborative leadership means getting input from all team members so you can make informed decisions that positively impact everyone. It means you value diverse perspectives and insights and genuinely seek input and feedback on company initiatives.
• Mutual respect and trust: Transparent and open communication is at the heart of collaborative leadership. The goal is to create an environment where team members are valued and respected. They should feel welcome to share their thoughts without fear of judgment.
• Collective intelligence: Collaborative leaders recognize and appreciate the strengths of each team member — their unique knowledge, diverse experiences, skills, and background. They use each person’s strengths to solve problems, innovate, and achieve common goals.

Why is collaborative leadership important for distributed teams?

Distributed teams often grapple with hurdles such as communication barriers, team silos , collaboration struggles, and the inherent difficulty of fostering connections among team members scattered across different locations. These challenges can impede teamwork and put a damper on productivity. 

Collaborative leadership offers a solution to these challenges. Collaborative leadership bridges the gaps created by distance and diverse time zones by focusing on communication and understanding. Managers can create an inclusive culture where team members feel valued by listening to and respecting their opinions and contributions.

Ultimately, collaborative leadership reduces the barriers distributed teams face. It makes everyone integral to the team’s shared goals and successes, regardless of their physical location.

Benefits of collaborative leadership in distributed teams

In a collaborative leadership environment, the benefits extend beyond productivity and efficiency to the team’s overall well-being. 

Improves team cohesion and morale

Team cohesion refers to the sense of unity and camaraderie within a group, and it’s crucial for workplace success , including productivity and job satisfaction. It fosters a supportive environment where team members feel like an essential part of the team.

Collaborative leaders recognize the significance of building relationships among team members. With collaborative leadership, you can create a culture where everyone feels connected, valued, and aligned on common objectives . This sense of belonging boosts morale and encourages team members to support one another, fostering a stronger and more cohesive team dynamic.

Enhances creativity and problem-solving

Creativity and effective problem-solving are vital for innovation and overcoming challenges. Collaborative leadership helps with this by promoting an environment where different ideas converge. This approach encourages individuals to consider the big picture, emphasizing a shared vision and purpose.

Collaborative leaders thrive on harnessing diverse perspectives and expertise. This inclusive approach sparks creativity, encourages out-of-the-box thinking, and results in successful solutions to complex problems.

A study from the Harvard Business Review illustrates this. An airline company had customer service problems. Part inspections took eight hours — very time-consuming. Since the company fosters a culture of collaborative leadership, an administrative assistant could identify the underlying issue and suggest a creative solution. The chief technology officer turned the idea into reality and cut inspection time by 85%. Without collaborative leadership, the administrative assistant might not have been given the chance to share her solution with the team.

Reduces feelings of isolation among team members

Feelings of isolation can negatively impact remote team members. Factors like reduced social interaction, limited visibility, and recognition, and communication challenges can contribute to these feelings of isolation.  

One study found that feeling isolated from work and colleagues made people less satisfied with their work-from-home experience. But the study also found a simple solution: The more support and connection respondents perceived from their organization, the more likely they were to report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction working remotely.

Collaborative leadership actively combats feelings of isolation by acknowledging and addressing the challenges of remote work. Through clear communication, inclusivity, and cultivating a supportive work environment, leaders can mitigate feelings of isolation in distributed teams.

Increases employee engagement

Engagement signifies the level of commitment and enthusiasm team members have toward their work. And high engagement generally means higher productivity and profitability, according to research by Gallup. 

Collaborative leadership boosts engagement by actively involving individuals in decision-making, valuing their contributions, and creating a platform for open dialogue. When team members feel heard and valued, they become more engaged and motivated.

Use collaboration tools to drive success through collaborative leadership

In the enduring landscape of distributed work, collaborative leadership helps remove challenges, such as isolation and communication barriers, and enhances team cohesion, creativity, and engagement. Fostering a collaborative environment isn’t just an idea; it’s the cornerstone of success for distributed teams.

It’s important to equip your team with tools that amplify collaboration and teamwork. 

Mural, a visual work platform, offers hundreds of free templates and resources designed to unite teams, provide a clear overview of projects, and streamline decision-making. 

Related blog posts

Trust your people — you hired them for a reason

7 tips for providing constructive feedback to your team

10 ways to build trust in a team

Related blog posts.

How to use reverse brainstorming with your team

What is a flowchart? Examples, tips, and templates

Time blocking best practices: How to boost your productivity

Collaborative Leadership: What It Is & Why It’s Important

Career Advice & Advancement Industry Advice Communications & Digital Media

As the professional world continues to develop and change, the way executives within organizations manage their teams has needed to evolve with it. 

In the past, leaders often worked in silos, handling only the tasks that fell directly under their domain. Today, however, managers are leaning on collaborative leadership methods as a means of embracing innovation and meeting their organization’s unique goals.

Read on to learn what collaborative leadership means, what trends are making it so essential, and how you can embrace this method in your workplace today.

What is Collaborative Leadership?

Collaborative leadership is a management practice in which members of a leadership team work together across sectors to make decisions and keep their organization thriving. This style of leadership has become common among managers today, replacing the standard top-down leadership method of the past, in which high-level executives made decisions that trickled down to employees without offering any insight into how or why those decisions were made.

Unlike this outdated top-down approach, the collaborative leadership model offers many benefits to organizations. At the executive level, it fosters a sense of unity among managers, allowing them to make effective business decisions quickly, set and maintain the organization’s core values, and strategically address issues as a single, cohesive team. Embracing collaboration at this high level also demonstrates to employees that they, too, should approach their work in a similar, collective way.

“If you’re the CEO and you want a more collaborative leadership model, it starts with you,” says Carl Zangerl , lead faculty for the Master of Science in Corporate and Organizational Communication program within Northeastern’s College of Professional Studies . “That’s what leadership is—defining the vision and defining what values you, at the leadership level, feel are most critical in helping the organization succeed, and then embodying them.”

When executives can successfully embody collaboration, they create a needed feeling of transparency across teams. This transparency fosters an environment of openness, trust, and comfort which, in turn, allows professionals to freely share different perspectives, voices, opinions, and ideas across sectors—a necessary step in the innovation process .

Alongside an increase in innovation, studies show that this type of environment also sparks productivity among employees. Forbes reported that a recent joint study found companies that “promoted collaborative working were five times as likely to be high performing.” 

Overall, organizations that are led by collaborative leaders are likely to develop more agile, innovative, and high-functioning teams that can make a lasting impact across industries.

Download Our Free Guide on the Skills Every Communicator Needs in the Digital Era

From analytics know-how to reputation management, here’s how you can stay competitive.

DOWNLOAD NOW

Trends Impacting Collaborative Leadership 

Workplaces are embracing the collaborative leadership model now more than ever before—and with good reason. Access to digital collaboration tools, a shift in the view of employees as assets across multiple functional areas, and the use of big data in decision-making have all led to an increase in the use of collaborative teams across industries. Below, we explore how each of these aspects has contributed to this increase in cross-functional collaboration.

Access to New Technologies

Digital collaboration tools in the workplace have broken down many physical and metaphorical barriers among employees, allowing teams to work more closely together to accomplish tasks. “When I was in my corporate career, functional areas operated independently [without] much information sharing,” Zangerl says. “[But now], the impact of digital technologies can be felt across organizations.”

Video conferencing, instant messaging, and the use of digital project management , time management , and customized operational programs provide employees in different departments—and even in different physical locations—the opportunity to actively engage with one another regularly. Products like Google’s G-Suite —which allow files to be easily created, edited, and distributed among teams—also provide employees the ability to share ideas and opinions virtually. 

These products have been vital as the nation continues to embrace both remote working and the gig economy . Research shows that, whether or not they are co-located, employees seek ways to stay connected. As a result, the organizations that offer these digital communication tools are in high demand. For example, a Deloitte study reported that workers were 17 percent “more satisfied with their workplace culture when they had access to effective digital collaboration tools.” Similarly, the study found that 46 percent of professionals found that these tools created the sense of transparency within their organization needed for proper collaboration.

A New Appreciation for Individual Strengths  

Many organizations have come to recognize the fact that a unified team of talented individuals can make a stronger impact on a company’s success than a single leader ever could.

“No one leader can lead an organization—it’s just impossible,” Zangerl says. “That’s a really old model of leadership, and the newer model is much more collaborative. There’s a recognition that people have different strengths, and you leverage those strengths to make the biggest impact.”

Studies show that professionals today are acquiring many strengths in the workplace that have applications beyond their everyday tasks. Collaborative leaders embrace these strengths—which might range from “ soft skills ” like strategic thinking, empathy, and communication to practical skills such as coding, project management , or analytics —and strategically apply them across functional departments. This act is responsible for developing the kinds of dynamic, agile teams we see in many of today’s top-performing organizations.

An Increase in Data-Based Decision-Making

Zangerl believes that “collaborative leadership becomes most critical in organizations that are further along in the digital transformation,” including those which have digitized the majority of their operations using technology such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. 

AI and machine learning software are commonly used to collect, organize, and present business-related data to leadership teams across industries , resulting in a vast array of information from which executives must draw conclusions and make impactful, data-based decisions . In these scenarios, leadership teams that do not act collaboratively risk making choices that might not align with their overall mission, or might otherwise not take into account the needs of every department within the organization. 

How to Become a Collaborative Leader

Recognizing the potential impact of collaboration is the first step in becoming a truly collaborative leader. However, if you want to transform your workplace and begin fully embracing this inclusive leadership method, there are a few steps you can take.

1) Do Your Research

One of the best ways to learn how to act as a collaborative leader is to witness a successful collaborative leader in action. Comb through your professional network to try and identify a connection who might either work under this type of manager or who is one themselves. Depending on your relationship, you might ask to meet up and discuss their experience with collaboration, focusing most specifically on the ways this practice has impacted their sense of unity as an organization, their personal and team productivity, and their overall workplace culture.

If you don’t feel you have anyone in your network who might be able to provide this kind of insight, try tackling your research from a broader angle. Search for companies that notoriously embrace collaborative leadership—such as Salesforce , General Electric , and IBM —and read up on the ways the executives in these organizations apply this method to their workplace. Being able to see how well-known companies have grown under a collaborative leadership model might help further solidify the benefits of applying this practice within your team, as well.

2) Practice Collaboration in Your Workplace

Although it may take time for managers to transition from another leadership method to one of collaboration, there are a few key steps Zangerl outlines that can set them on the path toward success.

• Articulate a clear vision. Zangerl explains that it is up to an organization’s leaders to set “a clear vision that collaboration is going to be part of the culture of the organization.” Without that standard, professionals will have a hard time knowing what they’re working toward in terms of collaboration and will lack the inspiration needed to break boundaries.
• Lead by example. In order to inspire your team to operate collaboratively, it’s important to demonstrate what you’d like to see at the executive-level. “People within an organization model their behavior on what they see leaders doing,” he says. “So if they see leaders setting and modeling collaborative behavior, then it’s more likely they’re going to expect that from members of their teams.”
• Create the right environment. Collaborative leaders are team-oriented, good listeners, and, perhaps most significantly, able to create a collaborative environment in their workplace. This type of environment should be filled with trust, transparency, and a focus on relationship-building above all else—a combination that will naturally set the tone for shared ideas and perspectives.

3) Never Stop Learning

Enrolling in a graduate program is an excellent way for any professional to gain practical abilities and advance in their career . Individuals hoping to be promoted into a manager role, for instance, might consider earning an advanced degree in their specific area of work. Those who are already managers, however, should instead pursue a degree that will teach them how to be an overall more effective leader . 

Did You Know: Northeastern’s master’s in leadership program offers great opportunities for managers to explore the various approaches to leadership, practice their skills outside of the classroom, and identify which method works best for them. 

The Master of Science in Corporate and Organizational Communications Program

For the leaders who are confident in the collaborative leadership approach, however, a Master of Science in Corporate and Organizational Communication from Northeastern offers the perfect combination of courses and hands-on experience you’ll need to succeed.

“All of the courses [in the corporate and organizational communications program] put a big emphasis on really understanding how communication supports the overall organization vision and strategy,” Zangerl says. “We know you’re not doing communication for the sake of communication. You’re really supporting the performance of the organization and the culture that you’re working in.”

These skills are vital in creating a collaborative working environment and operating under this particular leadership model, and this program offers students the chance to learn from industry professionals who have already applied these practices to their workplaces.

The curriculum of the master’s in corporate and organizational communication program also addresses some of the trends defining collaborative leadership today. “We’re always looking at what the changes are in the field, and how we can reflect those in the courses we’re teaching,” Zangerl says. “[For example,] we know digital technologies…agility, and data-based decision making are reshaping the organizational world,” and Northeastern’s program has developed courses that provide communicators with the tools they need to successfully operate in these rapidly changing environments.

Part of that approach is an emphasis on real-world experience. “We’re trying to give students [the chance to] practice those skills, so we’ve built a lot more experiential learning opportunities into the program,” he continues.

Through co-ops , XN projects , and more, students will have the chance to practice collaboration within active workplaces, while also observing first-hand the kind of powerful impact a collaborative leader can have on an organization.

“When you’re working in a real-life scenario, you begin to recognize the fact that you have to be collaborative, you have to be thinking about teamwork, and you have to be thinking about how to leverage digital technologies,” Zangerl says. “[Then] you have to synthesize all of that in order to be an effective [leader.]”

Learn more about how the Master of Science in Corporate and Organizational Communication from Northeastern can help you hone your collaborative leadership skills by talking to an enrollment coach today. 

Subscribe below to receive future content from the Graduate Programs Blog.

About shayna joubert, related articles.

Faculty Insights: What Do Employers Look for in a New Candidate?

Virtual Co-op Evolves Into a Social Platform WomenVotes.org

Why You Should Consider a Career in Technical Writing

Did you know.

Communications and digital media jobs are expected to grow by more than 83,000 by 2022. (BLS)

Master of Science in Corporate and Organizational Communication

Communicate above the noise of today's digital age.

Most Popular:

Tips for taking online classes: 8 strategies for success, public health careers: what can you do with an mph, 7 international business careers that are in high demand, edd vs. phd in education: what’s the difference, 7 must-have skills for data analysts, in-demand biotechnology careers shaping our future, the benefits of online learning: 8 advantages of online degrees, how to write a statement of purpose for graduate school, the best of our graduate blog—right to your inbox.

Stay up to date on our latest posts and university events. Plus receive relevant career tips and grad school advice.

By providing us with your email, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Keep Reading:

Top Higher Education Conferences To Attend in 2024

Grad School or Work? How To Balance Both

Is a Master’s in Computer Science Worth the Investment?

Should I Go to Grad School: 4 Questions To Consider

Problem-solving in Leadership: How to Master the 5 Key Skills

The role of problem-solving in enhancing team morale, the right approach to problem-solving in leadership, developing problem-solving skills in leadership, leadership problem-solving examples.

Other Related Blogs

What’s the Role of Problem-solving in Leadership?

• Getting to the root of the issue:  First, Sarah starts by looking at the numbers for the past few months. She identifies the products for which sales are falling. She then attempts to correlate it with the seasonal nature of consumption or if there is any other cause hiding behind the numbers. 
• Identifying the sources of the problem:  In the next step, Sarah attempts to understand why sales are falling. Is it the entry of a new competitor in the next neighborhood, or have consumption preferences changed over time? She asks some of her present and past customers for feedback to get more ideas. 
• Putting facts on the table:  Next up, Sarah talks to her sales team to understand their issues. They could be lacking training or facing heavy workloads, impacting their productivity. Together, they come up with a few ideas to improve sales. 
• Selection and application:  Finally, Sarah and her team pick up a few ideas to work on after analyzing their costs and benefits. They ensure adequate resources, and Sarah provides support by guiding them wherever needed during the planning and execution stage. 
• Identifying the root cause of the problem.
• Brainstorming possible solutions.
• Evaluating those solutions to select the best one.
• Implementing it.

• Analytical thinking:   Analytical thinking skills refer to a leader’s abilities that help them analyze, study, and understand complex problems. It allows them to dive deeper into the issues impacting their teams and ensures that they can identify the causes accurately. 
• Critical Thinking:  Critical thinking skills ensure leaders can think beyond the obvious. They enable leaders to question assumptions, break free from biases, and analyze situations and facts for accuracy. 
• Creativity:  Problems are often not solved straightaway. Leaders need to think out of the box and traverse unconventional routes. Creativity lies at the center of this idea of thinking outside the box and creating pathways where none are apparent. 
• Decision-making:  Cool, you have three ways to go. But where to head? That’s where decision-making comes into play – fine-tuning analysis and making the choices after weighing the pros and cons well. 
• Effective Communication:  Last but not at the end lies effective communication that brings together multiple stakeholders to solve a problem. It is an essential skill to collaborate with all the parties in any issue. Leaders need communication skills to share their ideas and gain support for them.

How do Leaders Solve Problems?

Business turnaround, crisis management, team building.

Process improvement

Ace performance reviews with strong feedback skills..

Master the art of constructive feedback by reviewing your skills with a free assessment now.

Why is problem solving important?

What is problem-solving skills in management, how do you develop problem-solving skills.

Top 15 Tips for Effective Conflict Mediation at Work

Top 10 games for negotiation skills to make you a better leader, manager effectiveness: a complete guide for managers in 2024, 5 proven ways managers can build collaboration in a team.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Healthc Leadersh
• PMC10460600

Leadership Development Strategies in Interprofessional Healthcare Collaboration: A Rapid Review

Juan bornman.

1 Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa

Brenda Louw

2 Department Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA

Contemporary healthcare practitioners require leadership skills for a variety of professional roles related to improved patient/client outcomes, heightened personal and professional development, as well as strengthened interprofessional collaboration and teamwork.

Objective/Aim

The aim of this study is to systematically catalogue literature on leadership in healthcare practice and education to highlight the leadership characteristics and skills required by healthcare practitioners for collaborative interprofessional service delivery and the leadership development strategies found to be effective.

Methods/Design

A rapid review was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) diagram shows that the 11 databases, yielded 465 records. A total of 147 records were removed during the initial screening phase. The remaining 318 records were uploaded onto Rayyan, an online collaborative review platform. Following abstract level screening, a further 236 records were removed with 82 records meeting the eligibility criteria at full text level, of which 42 were included in the data extraction. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal.

Results showed variability in methodologies used, representing various healthcare disciplines with a range in population size (n = 6 to n = 537). Almost half of the results reported on new programs, with interprofessional collaboration and teamwork being the most frequently mentioned strategies. The training content, strategies used as well as the length of training varied. There were five outcomes which showed positive change, namely skills, knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and satisfaction.

This rapid review provided an evidence-base, highlighted by qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research, which presents distinct opportunities for curriculum development by focusing on both content and the methods needed for leadership programs. Anchoring this evidence-base within a systematic search of the extant literature provides increased precision for curriculum development.

Introduction

Changes in healthcare worldwide have led to an emphasis on leadership development in healthcare professions, which include medical, dental, public health, nursing, and allied health providers (eg, audiology, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, radiography, speech-language therapy) to meet current healthcare needs. 1–3 These changes have been brought about by factors, such as advances in information technology, automation, human interconnectivity, cross-sector mergers, advances in precision medicine, community involvement, providing services during periods of financial instability, and more recently the global COVID-19 pandemic. 1 , 4 , 5

As a result, effective leadership is now needed at all levels of healthcare for safety assurance, to drive service development, to ensure good clinical outcomes, 6 to foster engagement of healthcare practitioners (HCP), 2 to advocate for their patients/clients, to be self-aware and prioritize personal and professional development, to become innovative thinkers and to practice ethically. 7 , 8

Importantly, leadership skills enhance HCPs willingness to participate in team care and facilitates the long-term sustainability of team care. 5 Internationally, clinical leadership has been emphasized to ensure quality of care, job satisfaction and retention of HCP. 9

Global changes in healthcare necessitated new strategies and ways of working in HCP. Currently, there is widespread international recognition that bridging the boundaries of professional disciplines is required to address the challenges posed by changes in healthcare, 1 , 10 validating the World Health Organization’s 11 call to meet the complex service needs of the future through interprofessional collaboration (IPC).

In the IPC approach, members work collaboratively to complete an activity collectively. 12 IPC is defined by a diversity of skills, roles, and perspectives, bringing practitioners who have divergent expertise together with the purpose of combining their skills and insights to realize a shared goal that could not otherwise be achieved through the reliance on a single skill set of one disciplinary group. Leadership is essential for interprofessional collaboration. 13 A scoping review 14 (n = 114) examined how leadership is referred to and used in IPC and found that most papers did not refer to a specific leadership approach, nor did they identify, define, describe, or theorize leadership capabilities. A more critical examination of interprofessional leadership and the capabilities required to lead the necessary changes in both education and practice settings is needed.

As leadership is now valued by HCP at all levels, new models of leadership have emerged as important contributions to HCPs who work collaboratively, including, but not limited to collaborative leadership, 3 , 13 transformational leadership, 15 , 16 systemic leadership, 17 ethical leadership, 18 , 19 and recently remote leadership. 20 Collaborative leadership models feature largely in Interprofessional Education (IPE) 13 and includes shared and team leadership with an emphasis on a common vision. As such, shared leadership involves the distribution of leadership influence in the team across multiple team members. Shared leadership has been shown to enhance processes, effectiveness, and performances in interprofessional teams 21 while increasing HCP satisfaction and reducing burnout. 22 Similarly, in team leadership different professions share influence and there is a thoughtful allocation of responsibilities. Central control is shifted from a leader to the team. Team members are independent and coordinate their activities to reach the shared team goal. 3

Transformational leadership is a contemporary form of leadership, and the underlying tenets are to inspire individuals and to form teams to inspire goals through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. 3 Transformational leadership is important to retaining HCP and to achieve overall patient satisfaction. 16

Leadership beliefs of clinicians and how it differs between professions has been explored in the research. 5 The link found between group identification and leadership beliefs, suggests that strategies which promote strong identification in both professional and interprofessional teams are likely to be conducive to clinicians supporting principles of shared leadership. HCPs benefit from developing not only leadership skills and characteristics, but also followership skills as leaders and followers co-produce the leadership that is needed in teamwork. 23 A pervasive leadership myth is that leadership is lodged in positional power in a specific organization. This type of thinking is false and flawed. HCPs at many levels and with many different roles daily display leadership, eg, leading an item on a case discussion, or leading a discussion with family members or with students. 19 This points to the requirement of HCPs to be adaptable and able to switch effortlessly between leadership and followership roles as it is beneficial to advance patient care.

HCPs are highly qualified and skilled professionals who work in range of health care settings. HCP providers require knowledge, clinical skills and competency, efficiency and productivity, and positive relationships with clients/patients. 24 In addition, HCPs require leadership skills to ensure the quality of care, to improve patient/client outcomes, to advocate for their patients/clients, to be self-aware and prioritize personal and professional development, to become innovative thinkers and to practice ethically. 7 , 25 , 26 Importantly, leadership skills enhance HCPs willingness to participate in team care and facilitates the long-term sustainability of team care, which relies on shared leadership. 5 However, the skills needed to be an effective HCP are different to those required to be an effective leader. 27 Training in HCP prepares individuals for leadership in a multitude of ways, for example, by taking care of patients, interacting with interdisciplinary team members, guiding groups, writing grant proposals with colleagues and emulating mentors or professors. 28 It is commonly acknowledged that although formal training in the multifaceted components of leadership has become accepted as highly desirable for healthcare leaders, 29 clinical HCPs have generally not been prepared for their expected role as effective health care leaders. 9 , 27 Furthermore, there are also gaps in leadership development practices in higher education settings of HCP. 1 , 30

Leadership development in HCP is an emerging research field and has been studied in various contexts by using a variety of methodologies, such as bibliometric analysis, 31 survey research, 5 qualitative research, 10 , 30 systematic reviews, 6 scoping reviews, 32 rapid reviews 17 and theoretical papers. 3 , 33 However, despite the broad diversity of the research there are limitations and a lack of consensus regarding the theoretical and conceptual frameworks applied, leadership models promoted, competencies required, training approach and strategies used to leadership development of HCP. 1 , 32 It was proposed that a universally applicable framework for leadership development in HCP will support leadership development programs aimed at multiple disciplines, both in professional training and in continuing education. Such a universal model can also lead to greater efficiency in developing new leadership development programs. 1

A new type of leader is emerging in healthcare, namely one who focuses on teamwork, improving patient outcomes and models the balance between autonomy and accountability. 3 Leadership development programs need to prepare and equip HCPs to fulfill this role expectation.

The aim of this study is to systematically catalogue literature on leadership in healthcare practice and education, in an unbiased manner, using a rapid review methodology by highlighting the leadership characteristics and skills required by HCPs for collaborative interprofessional service delivery and the leadership development strategies found to be effective.

A rapid review was undertaken due to its potential for producing timely and relevant research. 17 , 34 Rapid reviews are also attracting interest as a research method in the discipline of speech-language pathology (SLP). For example, Bolton et al 35 conducted a rapid review on aerosol generating procedures, dysphagia assessment and COVID-19 in response to urgent clinical needs, while Malandraki and colleagues 36 conducted a rapid systematized review of telehealth for dysphagia across the life span.

While there is no standardized procedure for conducting rapid reviews, several approaches have been suggested and used. 37 This rapid review used systematic review methodology and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statement. 38 , 39

Identifying the Research Question

To ensure that the rapid review included information relevant to the main aim, the review question was formulated in a PIO-format (Population-Intervention-Outcome): What are the leadership characteristics, skills, and strategies (Outcomes) required by HCPs (Population) in IPC and IPE (Intervention)?

Search Strategy and Study Selection

A systematic search of 11 relevant databases was conducted to capture a wide variety of potential papers that may be indexed across different databases. 40 A librarian assisted in identifying the relevant databases and interfaces as well as in refining search terms. Search terms using keywords were generated through the PIO method that categorizes the population, intervention, and outcome to identify search terms (see Table 1 ). The keywords included Boolean operators AND and OR to link the population to the intervention and outcomes in the search as well as truncation. No hand searches were performed due to restrictions brought on by the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The following four criteria were applied in the searches: (1) Only material published between January 2000 and December 2022; (2) any study design (ie, qualitative studies, quantitative studies or mixed-method research designs); (3) studies published in English; and (4) no grey literature (eg, reports, fact sheets, conference proceedings, chapters of academic textbooks, websites, newspapers and policy documents) as preliminary searches of the grey literature yielded limited information relevant to the pre-determined inclusion criteria of this review. 41

The 11 databases yielded a total of 465 records when employing the search terms, namely PubMed ( n = 86), EBSCO ( n = 71), Academic Search Complete ( n = 58), CINAHL ( n = 58), Web of Science ( n =56), Health Source – Nursing Academic Edition ( n = 55), PsychInfo ( n = 42), Scopus (n = 18), PsychArticles ( n = 9), Taylor and Francis ( n = 7) and AccessMedicine ( n = 5). An independent librarian versed in systematic reviews reviewed the search strategy and recommended databases related to health sciences and based on the topic. 42 Using multiple databases increased the depth of the search.

Initial Screening

As mentioned earlier, of the 465 records, a total of 95 duplicates were identified and removed ( n = 370 remained). The 370 remaining records were uploaded onto Rayyan, an online platform where researchers can perform collaborative systematic reviews. 43 The Rayyan platform was beneficial as it increased the objectivity of study selection and aided in improving the interrater agreement. The remaining 370 records were screened on title level of which 52 were excluded as the focus of these records was not on the topic of the current rapid review.

The remaining 318 abstracts were reviewed independently by two reviewers. The reviewers agreed on 291 abstracts, resulting in a 91.5% interrater agreement. The remaining 27 abstracts were discussed with two additional reviewers until 100% consensus was reached. 38 Studies were excluded on abstract level due to the non-target population, non-target outcome, or non-target focus of the study. The same process was followed to determine eligibility on the full text level of the remaining 82 records using the a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. The initial interrater agreement for this stage was also high (88.9%). Table 2 shows the inclusion- and exclusion criteria that was used for the screening and eligibility phases.

Screening – Eligibility Criteria: Title and Abstract Level

After the screening at abstract level, 318 records remained. The remaining 82 records were read at full text level and assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. The initial interrater agreement was 89.0% (reviewers agreed on 73 of the 82 records), which is regarded as a high agreement. 44 Disagreements were discussed with two additional members of the research team until 100% consensus was reached for every study record. A total of 42 studies were selected for full-text inclusion, based on the criteria in Table 1 .

The PRISMA diagram is shown in Figure 1 .

PRISMA diagram for scoping review process.

Data Extraction and Analysis

A data extraction tool was developed to compile consistent and independent data reports. It included general information (ie, authors, year of publication and publication type), descriptive information (ie, the discipline involved, country of publication and design used), as well as information related to the specific population (ie, the specific discipline, the number of participants and their experience), the intervention (ie, whether a specific course/module on leadership is described and if so, the type of course) and the outcomes (ie, leadership characteristics, skills, etc.). All data were extracted independently by at least two reviewers. As was the case for the initial screening, disagreements were resolved through consensus meetings and upon full consensus, the extracted data were transferred from the data extraction tool to a synthesized Excel spreadsheet.

Critical Appraisal

Following the data extraction, the quality of the included studies was appraised using the MMAT 45 to systematically check each article for biases. The MMAT firstly considers if there is a clear research question and if the collected data address the research questions before looking at specific questions depending on the study method. The MMAT overall quality score used descriptors such as numbers ranging from 1 (indicating 20% quality criteria) to 5 (indicating 100% quality criteria met). Two raters initially scored each of the 42 papers, but the interrater reliability was unacceptably low (64.3%). Hence, an additional two raters with more experience were added and the agreement level increased to 97.6%. 46 The consensus MMAT scores for the 42 studies included are shown in Table 3 .

Descriptive Information and Population (N = 42)

Abbreviations : ER, Emergency Room; GPs, General practitioners; LEND, Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities; MMAT, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al, 2018); OTs, Occupational therapists; PTs, Physical therapists; SLPs, Speech language pathologists; USA, United States of America.

The results of the rapid review are presented as descriptive information related to the 42 included studies (authors, year of publication, country, research design) and the study population (discipline, number of participants and their level) (see Table 3 ). First, the quantitative studies are shown, followed by the qualitative and mixed methods studies. This is followed by an analysis of the intervention that was used, as well as the outcomes of the intervention described in the various studies included (see Table 4 ).

Intervention Applied and Outcomes Achieved (N = 42)

Abbreviations : IPC, Interprofessional collaboration; N/S, Not specified; self-aware/id/conf, self-awareness/identity/confidence.

Descriptive Information on Included Studies

It is evident that there has been a steady increase in the number of studies published on the topic of leadership with only three studies published in the period 2000–2012 (7%) fulfilling the criteria set for the current review; five studies in the period 2013–2015 (12%), 17 studies between 2016 and 2018 (40%), and 17 studies between 2019 up to December 2022 (40%).

The methodologies used in the 42 studies included 26 surveys (62%) of which six (14%) specifically mentioned being offered pre- and post-training; 13 were qualitative studies (31%) of which four were case studies and nine were interviews; and three mixed-methods studies (7%) and one study (2%) was longitudinal in nature.

Geographically, half of the studies ( n = 20) were conducted in the USA. The other half were split between the United Kingdom ( n = 4), Australia ( n = 4); Malaysia ( n = 2); South Africa ( n = 3) and one each from Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, Iran, India, China, Brazil, and Latin America ( n = 9).

Regarding the quality appraisal, the one study that met 60% of the quality indicators (score of 3/5) was a qualitative case study. The 10 studies that met 80% of the quality indicators (score of 4/5) consisted of seven studies that employed surveys of which one study was longitudinal in nature, although none of the pre- and post-surveys fell into this category, as well as two qualitative studies which made use of interviews (one study used an in-depth interview and the other study used a semi-structured interview) and one case study. Most of the studies ( n = 31) obtained a score of 5 which indicated 100% descriptive quality.

Population: Healthcare Practitioners

The number of participants ranged from six 81 to 537. 55 Slightly more than a quarter of the studies (11/42 = 26%) reported on more than 100 participants, while 10 studies (24%) reported on 20 or less participants. The remaining 50% of papers (21) reported on between 21 and 99 participants. One study 58 did not report on the number of participants.

Of the specific disciplines that were included, three studies 47 , 72 , 75 did not specify the disciplines which were included, but simply mentioned “multi-disciplinary teams”. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the professions which were included.

Distribution of professions.

In the 29 studies that mentioned physicians, and the 24 studies that mentioned nurses, some differentiated the type of medicine (oncology, emergency medicine, surgery, pediatrics, family medicine and public health) as shown in Table 3 . HCPs in the applied professions included SLPs (five studies); occupational therapists (OTs) (seven studies), physiotherapists (PTs) (four studies) and nutritionists (three studies). Other HCPs included midwives, dentists, pharmacists, and podiatrists.

Regarding the level at which these practitioners were functioning, it is evident that most studies (26/42 = 62%) reported on clinicians (ie, practicing professionals), although four of these studies reported on both clinicians and students while two studies reported on both clinicians and the academic faculty. A total of 16 students at different levels of their studies participated (ranging from under-graduate to master’s level).

Interventions Employed to Train/Enhance Leadership Development

Table 4 reports on the specific interventions that were described in the different programs. Nearly half of the studies (20/42) reported on new training programs, while eight studies reported on existing programs. 47 , 53 , 66 , 70 , 72 , 76 , 85 , 86 In total, 14 studies did not specify whether the research reported on a new or on an existing program. 7 , 12 , 49 , 50 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 76 , 78 , 81–83 , 88 Most of the studies did not report on the length of training, although there appeared to be variability ranging from intensive-three and a half day courses 53 to courses spanning over two years. 54 Different training strategies were used, of which interprofessional teamwork (ie, working in teams across disciplinary boundaries) was the most prominent, and was mentioned in 13 of the 42 studies. 12 , 47–50 , 52 , 63 , 65 , 68 , 73 , 75 , 78 , 85 Three studies mentioned the use of group or collaborative learning, 51 , 53 , 72 while the use of simulation activities as a means of knowledge application was also mentioned in three studies. 50 , 55 , 68 Practical experiences was mentioned in the study by Rose and colleagues 67 and the use of the “train-the-trainer” method in the Brashers et al 47 study as forms of hands-on learning. In total, 23 studies did not mention what type of training strategy was used.

Regarding the content on which the training focused, it appeared that aspects related to the importance of teamwork (including a variety of teamwork elements, as well as collaboration across disciplines) received high priority in 25 of the 42 studies. 12 , 47–50 , 52–54 , 56–58 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 71 , 73 , 76–79 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 88 This was an expected finding given the focus on leadership, as leadership often involves teamwork. The aspects related to teamwork included conflict resolution, communication skills in teams, problem-solving, setting a joint vision and motivating others towards such a vision, roles and responsibilities of team members, time management and resource management. The important roles of the family as team members were also highlighted.

Another aspect that received attention was self-management, which also included demonstrating courage and resilience, empathy, reflection, and self-awareness. 51 , 60 , 65 , 66 , 71 , 74 , 76 , 79 , 80 , 84 A number of the studies specifically highlighted the importance of managing change and assisting others in this regard 53 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 67 , 68 , 79 , 80 , 85 as well as practicing in an ethically responsive manner. 47 , 60 , 62 , 74 , 79 , 84 Some studies did not specify the leadership skills, but merely reported on broad or general leadership skills, 50 , 54 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 70 , 73 , 75 , 83 , 86 while other studies were more specific and mentioned, for example, clinical leadership, 49 adaptive leadership, 72 authentic leadership, 74 collaborative leadership, 12 , 78 personal leadership, 65 or in some cases, not leadership skills but management skills. 59 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 68 , 78–81 , 87

Outcomes Achieved by the Specific Interventions Employed

Table 4 also shows the main outcomes (ie, positive change) that could be directly attributed to the interventions described in the various studies. There were five main types of outcomes achieved. The majority of the 42 studies focused on increasing specific skills with seven studies each reporting on an increase in knowledge 47 , 48 , 50 , 54 , 77 , 84 , 87 and in confidence, 48 , 51 , 55 , 60 , 61 , 84 , 85 while more positive attitudes were reported in four studies 54 , 67 , 70 , 87 and satisfaction with the leadership training program in two studies. 51 , 52 The nature of the skills which were addressed in the different studies varied greatly and hence resulted in different types of skills such as IPC or teamwork skills that improved in 18 studies, 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 65 , 75–79 , 81–84 followed by 15 studies that emphasized communication skills, 12 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 68 , 73 , 77 , 81 , 82 , 85 and increased self-awareness/self-identity and self-confidence in 10 studies. 59 , 60 , 62 , 64 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 , 84 Four studies each reported back on improved skills related to conflict resolution, 55 , 58 , 61 , 63 patient care, 48 , 65 , 83 , 84 and motivating others, 53 , 58 , 62 , 85 while three studies each reported on skills related to coping with change, 53 , 61 , 80 and problem-solving. 61 , 72 , 85 From Table 4 , it is possible to see that any combination of outcomes was possiblefor example, improving both knowledge and skills, or improving skills and facilitating a positive attitude. Furthermore, some studies only reported on one skill improving, 68 while some reported on multiple skills (eg, Jaffe 77 ).

The aim of the present rapid review is to investigate literature on leadership in health and education practice to highlight the leadership characteristics, skills and strategies of HCPs required for collaborative interprofessional service delivery. Leadership literature dated between 2010 and 2022 was studied, using a number of criteria. The main findings of this review are discussed below.

Leadership in Healthcare Professions

Leadership is viewed as a core role and responsibility of HCPs across a variety of care disciplines to ensure improved service delivery and patient care. A trend of more published research in leadership in HCPs was noted from the year 2010. Although studies from around the globe were included, the USA appears to lead the research in the current study. This trend was also noted by Brewer and colleagues 14 who mentioned that most empirical studies included in their review were undertaken by researchers based in North America. This may be attributed to the vast healthcare system in the USA and requirements for evidence-based practice that permeates all healthcare professions. In contrast to early intervention and early childhood special education where Movahedazarhouligh 89 reported a paucity of research on leadership research, this topic is well studied in the healthcare profession.

Evidence Base

This review identified a variety of methodologies employed, which can be attributed to the different types of training programs reported on. Survey research was the predominant methodology (60%) employed to study the outcomes of leadership training. Qualitative research, including case studies and interviews, mixed-methods research and a longitudinal study were included in the 42 articles included and analyzed in this review. Complying with quality indicators of research design is essential to the development of an evidence base of leadership within healthcare. 90 The different disciplines within the healthcare profession were widely represented in the populations studied, although three studies did not specify which disciplines were studied. This variation points to the strength of the research evidence which can be used to inform the development of future quality training programs within the healthcare profession.

Similar to the review by Brewer et al, 14 most articles in the present review also did not refer to, or operationalize any specific leadership approaches or models. Bahreini et al 91 emphasize the importance of developing and adhering to a framework for training leadership in HCPs, especially one that can be adapted for use in local situations. Therefore, the extracted components of the current rapid review can be viewed as a first step in developing an evidence base, building on a comprehensive overview of leadership in HCPs.

Elements of Leadership Training

Leadership is viewed to be an inherent quality and characteristic of HCPs. 90 However, the complex and dynamic nature of leadership in HCPs precludes the unanimously accepted description of the characteristics required to perform an effective leadership role. Smith et al 92 conclude that effective interprofessional health and social care team leadership requires a unique blend of understanding and skills that support innovation and improvement. Some of the ways through which leadership is often evidenced is through advocacy (ie, to promote the self-advocacy of the clients with whom HCPs work), training of families and other role players, mentoring (eg, of less experienced colleagues), supervision, continuing education, and research. It is thus self-explanatory that leadership necessitates a complex set of knowledge, skills and attitudes which require formal education, either at a pre-professional or professional level. 7 Despite this acknowledgement of the importance of leadership, formal training for the development of skill sets and abilities is generally lacking to better prepare future HCPs and in continuing education for practicing HCPs. In rare cases where leadership is included in curricula, the emphasis is on aspects, such as leadership for healthcare systems, advancing careers, etc., rather than on, for example advocacy. 7

The current review reveals some gaps in reporting on the specific nature of the training programs, for example gaps related to the length and intensity of programs, which is important in evaluating the training outcomes. Regarding training strategies, an interprofessional teamwork approach was followed by 31% of the programs and three studies followed a collaborative learning approach. These approaches reflect the recent trends in healthcare service delivery. 13 There is, however, a need for research to clearly justify and describe the training strategies employed, as 55% of the studies did not describe this in their methods. The content of the training programs was focused on different elements of leadership including interprofessional collaboration and teamwork and the specific skills required to lead in that context, personal leadership skills such as self-management, strategies for managing change and ethical responsibilities of leaders. Furthermore, not all programs identified their approach to leadership, which is the framework for selecting the knowledge and skills to be trained. Although the studies had sound research methodologies, the training program development could be more rigorous, which would allow for the replication of training programs. Rao et al 93 point to the importance of course design when developing quality improvement educational leadership programs.

Leadership Training Outcomes

Although all the articles reported positive changes which were attributed to the training programs, the question remains how to ensure retention, as only a few studies included post-surveys and long-term training. Since leadership is a desired outcome of HCPs training programs, whether on a pre-professional or professional level, it should instill a process of lifelong reflection and development. 88 By identifying specific leadership competencies relating to knowledge and skill development, defined objectives can be formulated. Curriculum mapping on the pre-professional level can be implemented to determine the overage of leadership-related competencies across the curriculum. 88 , 94

Lastly, the global COVID-19 pandemic added urgency and importance to leadership skills in the healthcare profession internationally. Difficulties in accessing services due to COVID-19 restrictions led to telehealth. However, the use of technology is challenging and could be limiting in managing complex situations. HCPs were further challenged in a variety of ways such as applying universal precautions and accessing personal protection equipment, to name but a few. The COVID-19 health emergency called for crisis leadership with specific competencies such as signal detection, prevention and preparation, containment and damages and learning and reflection. 95

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This rapid review includes strengths with its size, method, and scope, but also has limitations. Firstly, it is possible that the identified search terms did not identify all possible papers as only 11 databases were searched, and no hand-searching of papers was included. The present review focused only on papers published in English and only from the year 2000 onwards. One study met the 60% MMAT quality appraisal score with many studies reflecting “missing data” (eg, did not specify the sample size; did not specify the methods used for leadership training; did not specify the length of training).

The international scope of this rapid review presents distinct challenges for research conducted across varying disciplines and the methods used in the different contexts. Papers covered a range of HCP disciplines which may not result in the same implications across disciplines. However, it is expected that it would contribute to the existing body of literature and assist HCPs when developing leadership curricula for their specific discipline.

Future research could build on the current data and focus on a more critical examination of interprofessional leadership, and the capabilities required to lead the changes required in both education and practice settings. 14 To further support the emerging trend of including leadership development programs in HCP curricula, sustainability of the outcomes of leadership development programs in different contexts can be explored.

This rapid review was designed to systematically catalogue literature on leadership in healthcare practice and education in an unbiased manner to highlight the leadership characteristics and skills required by HCPs for collaborative interprofessional service delivery. It also described the leadership development strategies that had been found to be effective. As the change in healthcare leadership continues to evolve, leadership development programs need to attend to the needs of HCP on all levels. The review revealed that a paucity exists in the description of leadership approaches and models used. Moreover, a dearth of information was found on retention and long-term impact of leadership development programs. The evidence-based highlighted by qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research presents distinct opportunities for curriculum development by focusing on both content and the methods needed for leadership programs. Anchoring this evidence-base within a systematic search of the extant literature provides increased precision for curriculum development.

Acknowledgments

The Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship (ADF) Program (PS00174859 and PS00157223) and the University of Pretoria’s Research Office are gratefully acknowledged for sponsoring this research project. The authors also wish to thank Gabrielle Saliba and Mary Catherine Smith who assisted with the search, screening, and data extraction as well as with the technical editing of the manuscript.

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

(All studies included in the review are marked with an asterisk*)

Leadership and Collaboration

• First Online: 01 June 2024

Cite this chapter

• Małgorzata Chałupnik   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4205-7489 3  

Part of the book series: Communicating in Professions and Organizations ((PSPOD))

26 Accesses

The aim of this chapter is to review the concepts of leadership and collaboration, both of which feature prominently in the discussion and analysis presented in this book. This chapter provides a detailed theoretical overview of, first, how these are understood in various disciplines that engage with leadership and collaboration before moving on to look at how these are understood by linguists, and, then, also how these are interpreted in this book specifically. This theoretical foundation provides a departure point for the linguistic analysis of the realisation of leadership and collaboration to follow, allowing me to position this analysis within a broader theoretical context and articulate my own positionality as the analyst.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Allen, Diane Wood. 1998. How nurses become leaders: Perceptions and beliefs about leadership development. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration 28 (9): 15–20.

Google Scholar  

Archer, Margaret S. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Arundale, Robert B. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2078–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bass, Bernard M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications , 3rd ed. London: The Free Press.

Baxter, Judith. 2015. Who wants to be the leader? The linguistic construction of emerging leadership in differently gendered teams. International Journal of Business Communication 52 (4): 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525460 .

Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . London: The Penguin Press.

Bhaskar, Roy A. 1986. Scientific realism and human emancipation . London: Verso.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978 [1987]. Politeness: Some universals in language use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership . New York: Harper and Row.

Burr, Vivien. 1995. Social constructionism . London: Routledge.

Cicourel, Aaron V. 1990. The integration of distributed knowledge in collaborative medical diagnosis. In Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work , ed. Jolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut, and Carmen Egido, 221–242. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clifton, Jonathan. 2014. Small stories, positioning, and the discursive construction of leader identity in business meetings. Leadership 10 (1): 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013504428 .

Collins, Randall. 1981. On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology 86 (5): 984–1013.

Donato, Richard. 2004. 13. Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050400011X .

Fairclough, Norman. 2005. Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies 26 (6): 915–939. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054610 .

Fairhurst, Gail. 2007. Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology . London: Sage.

Fiedler, Fred E. 1964. A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1: 149–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9 .

Ford, Jackie, Nancy Harding, and Mark Learmonth. 2008. Leadership as identity: Constructions and deconstructions . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

George, William. 2003. Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Goleman, Daniel. 2017. Leadership that gets results . Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Graham, Jill W. 1991. Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly 2 (2): 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W .

Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guy, Mary E. 1990. Ethical decision making in everyday work situations . Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Heifetz, R.A. 1994. Leadership without easy answers . Cambridge: Belknap/Harvard Press.

Hardy, Cynthia, Thomas B. Lawrence, and David Grant. 2005. Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review 30 (1): 58–77. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281426 .

Hersey, Paul, and Ken H. Blanchard. 1969. Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal 23 (5): 26–34.

Hersey, Paul, and Ken H. Blanchard. 1988. Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall International.

Hollander, Edwin P. 1992. Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly 3 (1): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90005-Z .

Holmes, Janet, and Meredith Marra. 2004. Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society 33 (3): 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504043039 .

Holmes, Janet, and Maria Stubbe. 2003. Power and politeness in the workplace . London: Pearson Education.

Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra, and Bernadette Vine. 2011. Leadership, discourse, and ethnicity . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katz, Robert. 1955. Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review 33 (1): 33–42.

Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence, Thomas B., Nelson Phillips, and Cynthia Hardy. 1999. Watching whale watching: Exploring the discursive foundations of collaborative relationships. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 35 (4): 479–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886399354008 .

Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work 1 . Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 .

Luthans, Fred, and Bruce Avolio. 2003. Authentic leadership development. In Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline , ed. Kim S. Cameron, Jane E. Dutton, and Robert E. Quinn, 241–258. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.

Mautner, Gerlinde. 2016. Discourse and management . London: Palgrave.

Mayo, Anna T., and Anita Williams Woolley. 2016. Teamwork in health care: Maximizing collective intelligence via inclusive collaboration and open communication. AMA Journal of Ethics 18 (9): 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.9.stas2-1609 .

Måseide, Per. 2006. The deep play of medicine: Discursive and collaborative processing of evidence in medical problem solving. Communication & Medicine 3 (1): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/CAM.2006.005 .

Måseide, Per. 2007. Discourses of collaborative medical work. Text & Talk 27 (5–6): 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.028 .

McCaffery, Peter. 2019. The higher education manager’s handbook: Effective leadership and management in universities and colleges , 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Mills, Sara. 2008. Language and sexism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mills, Sara. 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Discursive approaches to politeness , eds. Linguistic Politeness Research Group, 19–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Mintzberg, Henry. 2009. Managing . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Mullany, Louise. 2007. Gendered discourse in the professional workplace . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mullany, Louise. 2011. Im/politeness, rapport management and workplace culture: Truckers performing masculinity on Canadian ice-roads. In Politeness across cultures , ed. Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini and Dániel. Z. Kádár, 61–84. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Mumford, Michael D., Stephen J. Zaccaro, Mary Shane Connelly, and Michelle A. Marks. 2000. Leadership skills: Conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly 11 (1): 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00047-8 .

Ness, Kirsten K. 2017. The need for collaboration in pediatric oncology rehabilitation research. Rehabilitation Oncology 35 (1): 46–47.

Ness, Ottar, Øyvind. Kvello, Marit Borg, Randi Semb, and Larry Davidson. 2017. “Sorting things out together”: Young adults’ experiences of collaborative practices in mental health and substance use care. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 20 (2): 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487768.2017.1302369 .

Nilsen, Line Lundvoll, and Sten R. Ludvigsen. 2010. Collaborative work and medical talk: Opportunities for learning through knowledge sharing. Communication & Medicine 7 (2): 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v7i2.143 .

Northouse, Peter. 2021. Leadership: Theory and practice , 9th ed. London: Sage.

Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and social science . London: Sage.

Seeman, Melvin. 1960. Social status and leadership: The case of the school executive . Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, Ohio State University.

Shore, Lynn M., Jeanette N. Cleveland, and Sanchez Diana. 2018. Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review 28 (2): 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003 .

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 1992. Cross-cultural politeness: British and Chinese conceptions of the tutor-student relationship. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lancaster: Lancaster University.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures , ed. Helen Spencer-Oatey, 11–46. London: Continuum.

Strong, Tom, Olga Sutherland, and Ottar Ness. 2011. Considerations for a discourse of collaboration in counselling. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 2 (1): 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507686.2010.546865 .

Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends . Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Thomas, Jenny A. 1995. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics . London: Longman.

Trist, Eric. 1977. Collaboration in work settings: A personal perspective. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 13 (3): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586719887709 .

Vass, Eva, Karen Littleton, Dorothy Miell, and Ann Jones. 2008. The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and Creativity 3 (3): 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.09.001 .

Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, Donna J., and Barbara Gray. 1991. Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2): 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272001 .

Yukl, Gary, and William L. Gardner III. 2020. Leadership in organizations , 9th ed. Harlow: Pearson.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of English, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Małgorzata Chałupnik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Małgorzata Chałupnik .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Chałupnik, M. (2024). Leadership and Collaboration. In: Leadership and Collaboration in Workplace Discourse. Communicating in Professions and Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54722-5_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54722-5_2

Published : 01 June 2024

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-54721-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-54722-5

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Power of Leaders Who Focus on Solving Problems

• Deborah Ancona
• Hal Gregersen

Can you get people excited about the problems that excite you?

There’s a new kind of leadership taking hold in organizations. Strikingly, these new leaders don’t like to be called leaders, and none has any expectation that they will attract “followers”  personally  — by dint of their charisma, status in a hierarchy, or access to resources. Instead, their method is to get others excited about whatever problem they have identified as ripe for a novel solution. Having fallen in love with a problem, they step up to leadership — but only reluctantly and only as necessary to get it solved. Leadership becomes an intermittent activity as people with enthusiasm and expertise step up as needed, and readily step aside when, based on the needs of the project, another team member’s strengths are more central. Rather than being pure generalists, leaders pursue their own deep expertise, while gaining enough familiarity with other knowledge realms to make the necessary connections. They expect to be involved in a series of initiatives with contributors fluidly assembling and disassembling.

In front of a packed room of MIT students and alumni, Vivienne Ming is holding forth in a style all her own. “Embrace cyborgs,” she calls out, as she clicks to a slide that raises eyebrows even in this tech-smitten crowd. “ Really . Fifteen to 25 years from now, cognitive neuroprosthetics will fundamentally change the definition of what it means to be human.”

• Deborah Ancona is the Seley Distinguished Professor of Management at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the founder of the MIT Leadership Center.
• Hal Gregersen is a Senior Lecturer in Leadership and Innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management , a globally recognized expert in navigating rapid change, and a Thinkers50 ranked management thinker. He is the author of Questions Are the Answer: A Breakthrough Approach to Your Most Vexing Problems at Work and in Life and the coauthor of The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators .

Partner Center

• Privacy Policy

• Getting ready to “open up” after COVID-19
• For supervisors, it’s best to ask, don’t tell
• Creating Greater Corporate Focus on Change Initiatives
• Get employees to solve their own problems
• Natural work teams and the need for process
• Our experience with the 70:20:10 Rule
• What is World-Class Manufacturing?
• Take Time to Make Time
• Why Management Commitment is So Difficult
• Burning the Boats on Change Efforts
• The Urgent Trumps the Important
• What Is Training Within Industry?
• Apprenticeship Programs Need to Incorporate Thinking Skills
• Opportunities and Potential Problems in Continuous Improvement
• Of Weather and Risk Management
• How many problems has your company really solved?
• Manufacturing Trends for 2015: Is Critical Thinking on Your List?
• It’s Not the People
• Problem Solving Beyond ROI
• Having Fun with Problem Solving
• Apprenticeships: Old Solution to a New Problem
• Management Commitment is a Must
• Top Down or Bottom Up
• Celebrating Failure
• Proactive and Reactive Problem Solving
• The Best Problem-Solving Method
• PDCA and RCA
• RCA and 5 Whys
• RCA and Ishikawa Diagrams
• Quality and Problem Solving
• Problems on Projects
• The Training Investment
• The Power of Standardization
• The Art and Science of Project Management
• Why Manufacturers Don't Measure the Cost of Problems
• The Human Cost of Problems
• More Thoughts on the Cost of Problems
• The Cost of Problems

Collaborative Leadership and Problem Solving

• Problem Solving and Big Data
• Empowerment and Employee Happiness
• Employee Happiness - Part 2
• Making Employees Happy
• Content vs. Context
• Forget Quick Fixes: Do a ‘Slow Fix”
• Collaboration and Problem Solving
• Everything Old Is New Again
• Lean and Problem Solving
• Critical Thinking Skills: The Double Meaning
• Problem Solving and the Brain Drain
• The Vision Thing: It’s All About Performance Management
• When things don't work as expected right out of the box
• Making Behavior Change Stick
• Are Supervisors the Biggest Obstacles to Problem Prevention and Problem Solving?
• Goldilocks Training
• Man and Machine: The Focus on Asset Availability
• The Fortune Cookie: Change or Deal with It
• Technology Will Take You Only So Far
• The Problem with Decisions (and Problems)
• Training vs. Results
• The Top 10 Root Cause Analysis Questions
• What Process Experts Need to Succeed
• The Power of Process Experts
• Can Do and Want To
• Agility Should be the Focus of Lean
• Are You Fighting Fires or Managing Risk?
• Taking Organizational Problem Solving to the Next Level - It's not just one Kaizan Event after another.
• Corrective Action for Profit Growth - Do you truly solve operating problems or are you just spending money on band-aids?

Posted by admin on September 9, 2013

Believe Power is Greatest in a Collaborative Team – Collaborative leadership is more than a set of lists and processes.   It is a mindset that great ideas can come from anyone on the team, not just the leader.   Companies that effectively avoid and fix problems understand this and tap everyone in the organization to contribute.

Openly Share Information and Knowledge – As we have stated in numerous blog posts, information is the lifeblood of effective problem solving.   Leaders who share what they know and ask effective questions to learn what their team members know are going to outperform traditional, close-to-the vest leaders.   And by harnessing the power of knowledge management systems, they can easily share their knowledge beyond their team and plant.

Encourage Suggestions and Ideas from Their Teams – At its very core effective problem solving relies on the knowledge and experience of everyone on the team.   This institutional memory is wasted if the collaborative leader thinks he/she has all the answers or doesn’t know what questions to ask to narrow down the root cause of a problem.  

Facilitate Brainstorming with Their Team – Brainstorming is great because it can help develop a list of possible causes.   But effective questioning helps collaborative leaders winnow down the possible causes by converting data about the problem into useable information.  

Enable Their Team by Allocating Time and Resources Right Away – We wrestle with this one a little bit because we’re not sure what is meant by “right away”.   Truly effective leaders ask questions to set priority on which issues should receive time and resources (by the way, time is a resource).   Ideally, the collaborative leader makes this process visible and works with the team to set this priority so everyone agrees the most important issues are being tackled first and there is greater commitment to the course of action.

Allow Roles and Responsibilities To Evolve and Fluctuate – We have seen this time and time again.   Collaborative leaders can be students, as well as teachers, and they can learn a great deal from their teams.   By having flexibility about roles and responsibilities, collaborative leaders can focus team members’ skills to the most pressing issues and not get hung up on rank-and-order issues.    Our most effective problem solving clients use Process Coaches, line operators who have been trained to facilitate CTS use with their peers, supervisors and plant leadership.

Seek to Uncover the Root Causes of Issues – This does not mean the leader has to be Sherlock Holmes.   But it does mean the leader must be committed to getting to root cause, not just applying band aides to get things running again.   Team members want to know issues are corrected, not just patched, which can lead to recurrence or worse issues because of the quick fix.

Offer Immediate and Ongoing Feedback and Personalized Coaching – Too often traditional leaders wait until the formal performance review to provide feedback. Collaborative leaders are more likely to provide meaningful and personalized feedback because they are on the scene and understand the projects being worked on.  

In reading the traditional vs. collaborative leaders list, we can’t help but think how slim the odds are that a CTS initiative would succeed in a traditional leadership organization.   We’re not saying it’s impossible, but CTS initiatives that achieve meaningful results in preventing and correcting problems are much more likely in collaborative leadership organizations than in traditional leadership organizations where all the power and control are held by a few managers.  

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

21 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Introduction.

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, joint problem solving: building better relationships and better solutions.

Industrial and Commercial Training

ISSN : 0019-7858

Article publication date: 1 February 1978

The joint problem solving process is not just a matter of using a good logical system, or just a matter of effective interaction and sound group processes. It is a complex interplay between ‘social’ and ‘rational’ processes. Kepner and Tregoe, examined a number of successful problem solvers — and found that there was a consistent logical pattern in which they moved from problem definition, to a comparison of the problem situation with the non‐problem situation then on to locating the cause and finally on to some form of positive decision and action plan. Another social scientist, Norman Maier has suggested that effective group processes are important, but that an effective group solution depends largely on the nature of the actual problem; he also gave an account of the rational and group processes in joint problem solving. Others, such as Rensis Likert, believe that problem solving effectiveness is due primarily to supportive group relationships. Another writer, William Gore, attributes successful problem solving to a type of ‘unconscious’ non‐rational process which has to be surfaced and accepted in order to get the best solutions. Alex Osborn pioneered the creative element in problem solving and laid emphasis on brainstorming where the group generates a wide range of alternatives in an unrestricted manner prior to deciding on the best solution to a problem. All these writers have made a valuable contribution to understanding the joint problem solving process and any effective approach to problem‐solving should take serious account of this wide range of approaches. But the approaches are nevertheless very different and may be difficult to reconcile in a unified approach.

MISSELHORN, H. (1978), "Joint problem solving: Building better relationships and better solutions", Industrial and Commercial Training , Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb003654

Copyright © 1978, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Log-In or Register
• Members Only
• Sign-Up To Receive Our Newsletter!
• Advertise With Us
• Register to become a contributor to GeneralLeadership.com
• Let Us Publish You!
• Speakers Bureau
• Order of the Penguin
• Featured Partners
• The GL Team in Action!
• Testimonials
• General Officer Authors
• General John E. Michel
• Matthew T Fritz
• George H. Fritz
• Catie Hargrove
• Douglas VanWiggeren
• Garth Sanginiti
• Angela Maiers
• Jean Michel
• Jay Steven Levin
• Chris R. Stricklin
• Holly Michel
• Kimberly Huth
• Zach Stricklin
• Taylor Fritz
• MentorsMatter™
• Vet2VetConnect™
• LeaderView™

General Leadership

• Creating a Problem-Solving Team

“If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.” Albert Einstein

I often find myself binning leaders into one of two categories: those who are process-centric, and those who are problem-centric.  Generally speaking, the former develops and refines processes in an attempt to synchronize an organization.  The latter stays focused on getting the right product or service, to the right person or customer, at the right time.  Between the two, the problem-centric leader has the best chance of creating competitive advantage when he or she instills a problem-solving culture throughout their organization.

Process-centric leaders, however, are far more in number.  At a conference in 2007, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni warned the military was entering an age of process warfare .  He believed many leaders tried to make the war fit the process, rather than making the process fit the war, and we as a military were consequently becoming less adaptable.  As they often do, many leaders began to worry more about the metrics and less about the mission.  I’ve personally seen this play out in combat operations and have heard many similar stories from my friends in government and private sectors.

For example, a friend of mine use s business “dashboard” software to monitor activity throughout his company and the marketplace.  While useful, he realizes the dashboard doesn’t tell the full story of what’s actually happening and why.  Many of his peers, however, make snap decisions using the dashboard data alone rather than using the technology to facilitate discussions with employees.  He notes many managers insist on sticking to processes that feed the dashboard.  As a result, prescriptive guidance rains down from the top and compliance regimes form that often impede their organization’s ability to adapt to a changing marketplace.

In the realm of digital marketing and customer engagement, relying solely on metrics from dashboards can create a similar disconnect between data and actionable insights. Push notification plugins, for example, offer a more dynamic approach to engagement, enabling businesses to communicate directly with their audience in real-time. These plugins can be among the best WooCommerce plugins for enhancing customer interaction by sending timely updates, promotions, and personalized messages that are tailored to user behavior and preferences. However, it’s crucial for businesses to use these tools as a means to facilitate deeper understanding and conversations rather than merely following preset processes.

Much like the limitations seen with dashboard software, if businesses focus only on the quantitative aspects of push notifications without considering qualitative feedback and adapting strategies accordingly, they risk missing out on valuable customer insights. Effective use of push notification plugins involves integrating data with human judgment, allowing businesses to respond more adaptively to changing customer needs and market conditions. This balanced approach ensures that the technology supports strategic goals rather than dictating them, fostering a more agile and responsive organizational culture.

As an engineering culture, we Americans almost can’t help ourselves but to bias toward process and under-emphasize the art in our business practices.  We increasingly use process as a means replace to collaboration, making the metrics we love blind us to the flaws in the processes behind them.

“Leaders owe their teammates an opportunity to leave the job at the end of the day knowing they’ve made a difference.”

But there is a way out.  The key is to leverage the talents and capabilities of each employee, who may have undergone a Power BI Training , to solve problems.  When a leader creates a culture that focuses on problem solving, their organization quickly adapts to their operating environment.  A leader can best do this by focusing employees on the three main components of problem solving—critical thinking, collaborating, and innovating.

Critical Thinking

The first step in problem-solving is framing the problem itself—a process effective organizations conduct at every level.  This important step requires employees to apply critical thinking…a common term these days.  To put it simply, critical thinking is an effort to look at an activity or an organization holistically and systemically.  It’s an attempt to understand all the factors in a situation and how they collectively interact.  Most people apply critical-thinking to the aspects of their life that matter most…relationships, hobbies, and sports teams for example.  The challenge for leaders is getting employees to apply the same critical thinking skills to their jobs.

One of the ways to promote critical thinking is to conduct exercises or planning events that give employees a chance to see the big picture.  A practical exercise we often use in the military is the rehearsal of concept, or ROC, drill.  The ROC drill brings people together to work through a complex task.  A leader normally reviews the purpose, objectives, and proposed course of action.  They ask people from each area to discuss their concept to support the effort, focusing on their own objectives, needs, capabilities, and constraints.  Along the way, a more complete picture of the way forward comes into view…not just for the leader, but for each participant.  Critical thinking exercises, like a ROC drill, allow employees to see what information they have that is valuable to others, and vice versa.  In that regard, it encourages collaboration.

Collaborating

Many of us complain about the amount of time spent at the proverbial water cooler when we realize our email inboxes are filling up in the meantime.  Many bosses and employees don’t understand the problem isn’t the water cooler…it’s the emails, staff meetings, and other events that take employees time away from problem solving. Creating a collaborative environment doesn’t mean we should have more meetings…which, let’s face it, are really about feeding the boss.  Emails and meetings are often a necessary evil, but there is a point where they become counter-productive.  In-person conversations among small groups, or even just two people, are still the best way to generate the ideas to tackle an organization’s problems.

Leaders can best encourage small group conversations within their organization by doing it themselves.   During those discussions, they should encourage their employees to make specific personal connections to overcome problems.  Not only does this reduce the amount of emails and meetings, it fosters relationships and teamwork.  When an organization is bound together by personal relationships, employees tend to overcome process flaws, and are more likely to generate innovative solutions to problems.

Though innovation can come from anywhere, we often need the right organizational structure to facilitate it.  Organizations tend to group employees by function (or specialized departments), which makes sense from an efficiency standpoint, but not always from the standpoint of generating innovative solutions to problems.  In the last couple years, I’ve started seeing something remarkable throughout the workforce.  More employees have become more likely to use technology to develop their own tools in solving problems.  I began to realize the innovation wasn’t about the tech.  It was about the way we structured the organization to understand problems, learn from each other, and innovate using the technology.

In the military, we frequently “task organize,” which means creating an ad hoc organization to tackle a specific task or mission.  We organize “task forces” to bring in different experts and capabilities.  While this sounds like a massive undertaking, it really is a scalable concept.  When people from different backgrounds tackle a problem together, they tend to do it more efficiently and effectively than a group with the same background.   Imagine what a handful of people (a small task force) with the right mix of backgrounds and capabilities could accomplish.  A leader can gauge how effective their organization is at problem solving when these task forces start to self-organize, with no direction to do so from the top.

When a culture emerges that centers on critical thinking, collaboration, and innovation, an organization adapts and shapes outcomes in ways that no process-centric organization can.  Even better, when employees know they have the ability, authority, and responsibility to solve problems, they tend to be happier and more resilient.  Leaders owe their teammates an opportunity to leave the job at the end of the day knowing they’ve made a difference. A problem-solving organization will do just that.

How did you enjoy today’s post? If you liked what you read, sign up for our frequent newsletter by clicking HERE — and you’ll also receive our handy Leader’s Reference List

Our Authors

Total Post :0

Total Post :1

Recent posts.

• Applying Leadership by the Numbers

philmorrison

General Paul McGillicuddy

• Secret Traits Of Championship Teams

NikSanginiti

Total post :2.

• Intern Perspective: Overcoming Adversity
• Intern Perspective: Enduring Excellence

ChristianKnutson

Total post :15.

• What Is Upward Leadership and Why You Need to Be Effective Doing It
• Using Intelligence Theory to Lead and Unlock Creativity
• How Mindset Can Affect Organizational Leadership
• Sustaining High Performance In Your Teams
• Embracing Stress To Lead Others Effectively

CroftEdwards

Total post :16.

• LeadershipFlow - Perfectly Square: A Story About Learning to Lead
• Leadership: This AND That, Not This OR That
• Can I Trust You As A Leader?
• Hey Leader—What are You Fighting FOR?
• Is It Time For A Leadership Break?

• Authenticity Is The Secret Sauce

KenMcQuiston

JeffreySmith

• Values-Based Leadership

Total Post :3

• About Saying "I Love You"
• I Like Hot French Fries
• Cubs and Aspirations - Humor from Section 220

KimberlyHuth

• Encourage TRUST in Your Workplace

DavidESpector

• Are you Chewing Your Way Through Life?
• Watch your Step

JoeThornell

Total post :29.

• It's Time for a Leadership Checkup!
• Effective Leadership requires Key Ingredients
• Leadership is Representation
• Leadership in Stasis
• Leadership Can Be Destructive

ColToddHirneisen

• The Leadership Experience
• It’s your stage, what do you do with it?
• Opportunity: Don't Do Anything
• Anarchy in the Workplace
• Faking Your Way to Authenticity

CRStricklin

Total post :35.

• 3 Elements of A Shared Mental Model...The Thunderbird Way
• The Passion of Leadership
• Lead at the Speed of Trust
• 4 All-Encompassing Effective Leadership Styles
• Perfection Found in a Fighter Debrief

JasonMBrown

Total post :4.

• Every Team Needs A Coach
• Think Twice Before Going Back to the Basics
• The Two Most Important Questions In Leadership

kentlandreth

• Train Your Replacement... Not Your Clone!
• Lead with Your Feet

Mickey Addison

• Leaders Are Readers
• High Performing Leaders Live a Balanced Life
• What is Synchronized Leadership?
• Continuing the Mission - Your First 30 Days
• Continuing the Mission - The First 100 Days

Total Post :12

• Credibility: Do you have it?
• Experience - Is It Really the Best Teacher?
• Passionate Leadership
• Lessons on Leadership from Fishing (part II)
• Lessons on Leadership from Fishing (part I)

• Priorities: A Different Approach
• 6 Rules Learned in Afghanistan
• Performance or Potential

• Frozen Leadership
• Forget Big and Flashy: Go For the Little Wow!

• A Mother's Day Perspective

AngelaMaiers

• The 5 C's of Passion Driven Leadership
• A “To Be” List for Aspiring Leaders
• Passion-Driven Leadership
• Tactical Serendipity: Is Randomness Part of Your Leadership Strategy?

Geno Redmon

Total post :14.

• Lessons in Top Gun Leadership: The Fine Art of Delivering Corrective-Action
• Top Gun Leadership: The Fine Art of Delivering Corrective Action.
• Top Gun Leadership: Butt-Chewing 101 (pt 1 of 3)
• Top Gun Leadership - Part 6
• Top Gun Leadership Series - Part 5

Christopher P Levy

Total post :36.

• Construction or Demolition
• Leading Leaders - How to be Successful
• Go Ahead and Quit!
• Self-Discipline, a Must for Team Success
• Bridging the Divide

Chris_Stricklin

• Monday Quote

• You Are Free To Choose
• Working For A Higher Purpose
• Your Glass Can Be More Than Half Full
• Prepare for the Future with a Completed Bucket List

Mike Klintworth

• From Technical Expert to Successful Leader
• 7 Essentials for Building a Dream Team
• The Bridge To Your Big Dream

General Allen Jamerson

• Social Media: A Professional’s Best Tool Used Wisely!
• Leading with Moral Courage

General Roger Brady

• The One Reason Why We Still Insist on Honesty

• Business Wisdom Learned From Bomb Squad Experts And Their Commanders
• How Well Are You Leveraging The Different Thinking Styles Of Your Teams
• Business Management Lessons from a San Francisco Bus Driver
• DeCluttering - Your Way To Brilliance
• Talent Stars - Don't Burn Your Shine!

General Gary Hughey

• Any Job Worth Doing Is Worth Doing Right the First Time
• Work is Honorable
• Leadership and the Work Ethic

• Time Waits for Nobody
• Emotional Intelligence and A Call-Up to the Big Leagues

General Michael Diamond

• What Happened to Long Term? - Pt 1
• Leading the Right Team
• Can Leaders be Heroes?
• Generalship: 10 Traits Needed by Every Leader

General Jerry Martinez

• Simulated Leadership

General James Vechery

Total post :10.

• Passing the Baton: Leadership in Transition
• Leadership Can Be Measured In Inches, Not Just Miles!
• N is for Never Setting Your Goals Too Low
• A Positive Attitude is Contagious
• V is for Visionary Leadership: Move the Ball Down the Field

General Kathleen Gainey

• The 3 Simple Rules of Effective Feedback

Matthew Fritz

• A Tribute To Veterans - Solemnly Remember
• A Day Short of Missing History
• Why We Write...
• Ask GeneralLeadership
• Tune in Tonight! - 9pm Eastern - SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125!

General John Michel

Total post :92.

• Why Less is Best
• Influence: Never Underestimate Your Impact
• Seize the Moment
• Vetrepreneur: Perpetual Payback
• The Dual Pillars of Character: Strength & Honor

This page has been archived and is no longer being updated regularly.

President's Column

A new era for collaboration

By Dr. Carol D. Goodheart

April 2010, Vol 41, No. 4

Print version: page 5

Two men are sitting in the same room in a library. One wants to open a window in the room, while the other wants to keep it closed. They bicker back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three-quarters of the way. No solution satisfies them both. A librarian enters. She asks one why he wants the window open: “To get some fresh air.” She asks the other why he wants it closed: “To avoid the draft.” After thinking a minute, she opens wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft. (As told by American social worker Mary Parker Follett, 1924.)

That story illustrates the lack of collaboration that has been all too common in solving problems, be they as small as opening windows or as considerable as health-care reform. But today’s students are embracing collaborative leadership as a way to address the world’s challenges. Donna Kalikow, executive director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, for example, describes her students as “entrepreneurial, independent, tech savvy, tolerant and socially conscious.” This new generation of leaders, she says, is steeped in “collaboration, cultural tolerance, conflict resolution, communication and ‘followership’ — the empowerment of colleagues who support a leader’s vision.” These skills and attitudes are becoming more salient as public, private and nonprofit sectors converge and globalization accelerates.

APA and its members are participating in this trend, too. In fact, APA’s first Strategic Plan is a good example of a collaborative process. It will take many members and partners to achieve the top three goals: maximize organizational effectiveness, expand psychology’s role in advancing health and increase recognition of psychology as a science.

Let’s consider how collaboration might get us there. Collaboration is a group problem-solving process that requires the creative integration of needs and joint ownership of decisions. It involves working in teams, coalitions, alliances, partnerships and networks. It involves trust and consensus building. It allows different leadership styles to contribute simultaneously. The goal of collaboration is not to solve problems through compromise but to achieve synergies that lead to innovative solutions.

APA is already creating such synergies through its many coalitions and partnerships. Working with Div. 42 (Psychologists in Independent Practice), for example, APA established a partnership with the National YMCA to promote health and wellness (see May 2009 Monitor article ). With more than 2,600 YMCAs in America serving more than 20 million people, APA is connecting psychologists to the public and, in turn, the YMCA is providing its members and staff with expertise to address behavioral and lifestyle issues.

The YMCA partnership is a great example of external collaboration. APA is also in the midst of an internal collaboration: the development of treatment guidelines. APA’s scientists and practitioners are working together to create guidelines that will translate psychology’s best scientific evidence into its best clinical practice.

Some problems seem intractably difficult, and determining how to collaboratively solve them isn’t clear. Alan Whitaker, dean of faculty and academic programs at the National Defense University, recommends multidisciplinary approaches to “VUCA” problems in society: those that are volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Fixing health care and reversing climate change will not be easy, for instance. We need more sophisticated collaborative efforts to address them successfully. Fortunately, we can see them being spawned and growing now. Newer technologies are helping to make it possible, but they are not magic bullets. The know-how that we create by bringing different groups together can lead to novel solutions to our problems. Diverse kinds of people, working together, is the key.

A new collaborative era is here. It is vital for psychology to develop its collaborative leaders and create common frameworks for progress. Do you see yourself as a part of the collaborative movement? Are you a collaborative leader? APA needs you to bring in the fresh air, without a draft.

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

More From Forbes

How to adopt a collaborative problem-solving approach through 'yes, and' thinking.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

After more than 24 years of coaching, I've noticed that teams and organizations still use traditional problem-solving techniques despite these being either obsolete or ineffective. For example, individuals still attempt to focus and dissect problems on their own with the hope of coming up with a solution by themselves.

I also notice a pattern of clients operating in silos. They have a tendency to equate the ability to solve problems by themselves as a form of independence and initiative. This works only to a certain degree. As the problem becomes more complex, this solo-solving technique becomes ineffective. Instead, teams should tap into the increasingly diverse and multidisciplinary pool that makes up the workforce. Not only is this useful for performance and productivity but also for problem solving.

I have found the collaborative problem-solving approach, by Alexander Hancock , to be an effective approach to achieving clients’ objectives. Collaborative problem solving occurs as you collaborate with other people to exchange information, ideas or perspectives. The essence of this type of collaboration is based on “yes, and” thinking – building on and valuing each other’s ideas.

Any individual, team or company can take advantage of this approach. I have found this approach to be most effective for companies facing problems that involve team members from different departments, backgrounds and personalities. This is also an approach that is usually unique to the coaching profession.

In any situation, when someone comes to you as a leader with a problem to discuss, your role is to help him or her look for the causes and discover solutions. Your role is not to resolve the problem alone but to guide them through collaborative problem-solving approach.

Attitudes For Collaborative Problem Solving

Hancock provides the list below of attitudes that are best paired with the approach:

• Win-win abundance thinking:  Collaboration allows you to work with others to develop solutions that will benefit you both. The key concept is to believe that it is possible to create a synergistic solution before you create them. It is not "you vs. me" — we can both succeed. Develop an "abundance mentality" — there is enough for everyone. “If you win, we all win.”

• Patience:  Collaboration takes time. You need to recognize that you are both helping one another to reach a resolution, and it may take more than one meeting to discuss. You will often need to work together over time to reach a satisfying solution that you will both agree on.

• “Yes, and” thinking:  Move away from polarized (either/or) thinking, and develop a “yes, and” way of thinking. This thinking is supporting a suggested idea and building on the idea to make it better.

Benefits Of Collaborative Problem Solving

Collaborative problem solving opens communication and builds trust in the relationship as you and your co-collaborator discover that you are both working together toward a shared outcome. This increases a joint commitment to the relationship and to the organization. It also indicates a commitment to helping others reach their goals and objectives, and to improve everyone’s performance for the company or the organization. Collaborative communication also encourages finding creative solutions. This increases the likelihood that others will take ownership of an issue and its solution.

Collaborative Problem-Solving Techniques

There are techniques that can help you engage in collaborative communication. Here are a few examples:

• Build on and connect ideas, rather than discarding one idea and looking for another one.

• Explore the strengths and drawbacks of each idea, compare and balance the pluses and drawbacks of each idea.

• Convert drawbacks to new possibilities. Try to find ways to integrate and combine new possibilities into an existing idea.

• When sharing your own opinion, make sure you offer it as a suggestion and not as a directive. The intention of collaborative problem solving is to provide a catalyst for exploration and consideration, instead of having the other person accept your advice or direction.

The collaborative problem-solving approach paves ways to open communication, trust, better planning and smooth implementation of a plan or strategy.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Log In
• Join CLN
• RSS Feed

Please log in below to comment and contribute to the Collaborative Leaders Network.

Not a Member? Join CLN .

Join the Collaborative Leaders Network

Members of the Collaborative Leaders Network (CLN) come from all walks of life. We are leaders of businesses and organizations, we are practitioners, and we are community members. What connects us is our belief that collaborative leadership and practices are necessary for solving the complex problems we face in Hawaii. There is no cost to joining CLN, nor any obligation to participate. Membership entitles you to contribute your own ideas and experiences to the site, receive updates, and engage with other collaborative leaders who are finding ways to shape Hawaii for the better.

Already a Member? Log in Now .

Forgot Your Password?

Simply enter your email address below, and a new password will be generated and emailed to you.

Collaborative Problem Solving

Strategy overview.

• 1 – Clarify Intentions
• 2 – Background Inquiry
• 3 – Process Design
• 4 – Group Launch
• 5 – Issue Analysis
• 6 – Generate Options
• 7 – Evaluate Options
• 8 – Produce Documents
• 9 – Executive Review
• Download PDF of Strategy
• Download PDF of Tools
• About Kem Lowry

It is increasingly difficult to craft plans, policies, and programs that are regarded as legitimate and sustainable without the direct engagement of representatives from multiple agencies, corporations, and non-governmental organizations.  Cross-sector collaborations of this type are designed to engage well-informed stakeholders in a process of sustained problem solving; the end product is often a policy document that can help to establish legislation, regulations, and standards.

This strategy requires that participants understand the logic of each stage of the process in order to build commitment toward a consensus perspective. Group members engage in clarifying the problem, analyzing potential strategies, crafting recommendations, evaluating draft documents, and delivering a report for which there is a high level of consensus and commitment.

An issue that is of sufficient importance and a convener who is of sufficient stature are among the critical success factors that will mobilize the necessary resources and participants for a  cross-sector collaboration of this type.

Cross-sector collaboration provides both the forum and the strategy for engaging the most knowledgeable stakeholders in sustained problem solving.

Stage 1: Clarify Intentions Identify the expectations of conveners to help them envision how the process might be organized, who might be participating, what time and resources will likely be required, and what the outcomes might be.

Stage 2: Background Inquiry Gather first- and second-hand background information to determine which issues should figure into the tailored design of a collaborative process.

Stage 3: Process Design Develop a provisional process design explaining the logic and outputs of each phase in order to garner participants’ early commitment to the process and the products.

Stage 4: Group Launch Introduce the participants and process, and start building trust and confidence by collaborating on a group charter and amending the process plan to reflect group concerns.

Stage 5: Issue Analysis Develop a shared understanding of the issue and identify those aspects that are most amenable to intervention.

Stage 6: Generate Options Identify and analyze a range of alternative strategies for addressing a problem or taking advantage of an opportunity.

Stage 7: Evaluate Options Evaluate strategies and choose between them using criteria the group selects.

Stage 8: Produce Documents Develop a plan, set of recommendations, or policy document that describes the strategy the group has developed, the rationale for the strategy, and the process by which it was developed.

Stage 9: Executive Review Present and explain the report to the executive or convener in a way that it is understood, accepted, and supported.

Related Examples

Designing the future of kakaako makai, related tools/resources.

• Critical success factors for Collaborative Problem Solving