It might be supposed that greater efficiency should be achieved if several people collaborate to solve a problem than if only one individual works on it. The assumption is by no means invariably true.
Although groups often may increase the motivation of their members to deal with problems, there is a counter-balancing need to contend with conflicts arising among members of a group and to give it coherent directions. Problem-solving is facilitated by the presence of an effective leader who not only provides direction but permits the orderly, constructive expression of a variety of opinions; much of the leader’s effort may be devoted to resolving differences. Success in problem-solving also depends on the distribution of ability within a group. Solutions simply may reflect the presence of an outstanding individual who might perform even better by himself.
Although groups may reach a greater number of correct solutions, or may require less time to discover an answer, their net man-hour efficiency is typically lower than that achieved by skilled individuals working alone.
A process called brainstorming has been offered as a method of facilitating the production of new solutions to problems. In brainstorming, a problem is presented to a group of people who then proceed to offer whatever they can think of, regardless of quality and with as few inhibitions as possible. Theoretically these unrestricted suggestions increase the probability that at least some superior solutions will emerge. Nevertheless, studies show that when individuals work alone under similar conditions, performance tends to proceed more efficiently than it does in groups.
Under special circumstances, however, a group may solve problems more effectively than does a reasonably competent individual. Group members may contribute different (and essential) resources to a solution that no individual can readily achieve alone; such pooling of information and skills can make group achievements superior in dealing with selected problems. Sometimes social demands may require group agreement on a single alternative, as in formulating national economic or military policies under democratic governments. When only one among several alternative solutions is correct, even if a group requires more time, it has a higher probability of identifying the right one than does an individual alone.
1.In this passage, the author argues that thinking in groups（）
2.The phrase ‘contend with’ in Paragraph Two most probably means （）
3.According to the author, compared with an individual, a group （）
4.The word ‘brainstorming’ in Paragraph Four roughly means（）
5.It can be seen from the passage that a group will be more efficient in（）
