This chapter, except where otherwise noted, is adapted from Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies, by University of Minnesota [Author removed at request of original publisher], licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

What are the advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making?

This introduction is adapted from Principles of Management, by Saylor Academy [Author removed at request of original publisher], licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Groups can overcome social loafing—or an impediment to performance—through teamwork. A group may include many talented individuals, but they must learn how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the team’s performance. Team goals must be set, work patterns structured, and a group identity developed. Individual members must learn how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved (Salas et al., 2009).

Group decision-making has the advantage of drawing from the experiences and perspectives of various individuals. Hence, ideas have the potential to be more creative and to lead to more effective decisions. In fact, groups can achieve results beyond what they could have done as individuals. Groups also make the task more enjoyable for members. Finally, when the group—rather than a single individual—makes a decision, implementing it is easier because group members are invested in the decision. If the group is diverse, they make better decisions because different group members have different ideas based on their backgrounds and experiences. Research shows that for top management teams, groups that debate issues and that are diverse make decisions that are more comprehensive and better for profitability and sales (Simons et al., 1999).

Below are various ways groups come to a group decision.

Delegate to an Expert

Delegate to an expert means that when a group cannot agree they turn to an expert for help. For instance, a group is not ready to make a decision at a given time either because it lacks sufficient information or is experiencing unresolved conflict among members with differing views. If the group does not want to drop the matter and move on, it can make a decision by expert: turning to a member who everyone feels has the expertise to choose wisely among the group’s alternatives. The group may also turn to an outside expert who is external to the group and is able to provide guidance. The group can ask the expert to come back later with a final proposal or allow the expert to make the decision alone after gathering whatever further information is necessary.

Averaging

Averaging means that group members may shift their individual stances regarding a question by splitting the difference to reach a middle ground. This technique works easily if numbers are involved. For instance, a group trying to decide how much money to spend on a departing member’s gift asks everyone for a preferred amount and agrees to spend whatever is computed by averaging those amounts.

Voting

Voting is probably the best method when groups need to make quick and definitive decisions. Everyone in mainstream American society is familiar with the process, and its outcome is clear and obvious. A majority vote requires that more than half the members vote for a proposal. A two-thirds vote requires that twice as many members show support for a proposal as those who oppose it, or it will not pass.

Voting is essentially a win/lose activity. Remember a time when you or someone else in a group were the strong and passionate minority whose desires were thwarted because of voting results. How committed did you feel about supporting that vote?

Voting does offer a quick and simple way to reach decisions if group members see no other way to overcome a deadlock. Likewise, very large groups and those facing serious time constraints may see advantages to voting. Finally, voting’s efficiency is appealing when it comes to making officially approved routine or noncontroversial decisions.

Consensus

This section on Consensus is adapted from Principles of Management, by Saylor Academy [Author removed at request of original publisher], licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Consensus is another decision-making rule that groups use to gain an idea or plan of action’s support. While consensus tends to take longer initially, it makes sense to use to enact a plan: members discuss the issues, generate a proposal, call for consensus, and discuss concerns. If concerns still exist, the proposal is modified to accommodate them. These steps are repeated until consensus is reached. Thus, this decision-making rule is inclusive, participatory, cooperative, and democratic. Research shows that consensus can lead to better accuracy (Roch, 2007), and it helps members feel more satisfied and accepting about decisions (Mohammed & Ringseis, 2001). However, reaching consensus can take longer, and groups that cannot reach consensus become frustrated (Peterson, 1999).

Note that consensus should not be confused with unanimity, which means that no one has explicitly stated objections to a proposal or decision. Although unanimity can certainly accurately convey a group’s views at times, groupthink, as discussed below, can lead to unanimous decisions. Therefore, it’s wise to be cautious when diverse people seem to have formed a totally unified bloc about controversial choice alternatives.

When all parties to a discussion fully exchange views, reach a consensus, and then adopt the decision in good faith, it can energize and motivate a group. Besides avoiding the win/lose elements intrinsic to voting, each member is invested in the decision and has a stake in preserving and promoting the decision after it has been agreed upon.

Guidelines for Seeking Consensus

How can a group actually go about working toward consensus? Here are some guidelines:

• First, be sure everyone knows the definition of consensus and is comfortable observing it. For many group members, this means suspending judgment and trying something they’ve never done before. Remind people that consensus requires that the group is jointly dedicated to moving forward.
• Second, endeavor to solicit every group member to participate. Even the quietest person’s perspective should be actively polled from time to time. Take special pains to ask for varied viewpoints when a discussion seems to be stalled or contentious.
• Third, listen honestly and openly to each group member’s viewpoints. Attempt to seek and gather information from others. Subdue your emotions and your tendency to judge and evaluate.
• Fourth, be patient. Reaching consensus takes more time than voting. A premature agreement reached because people give in to speed things up or to avoid conflict weakens or falls apart later.
• Fifth, always look for mutually acceptable ways to navigate challenging circumstances. Don’t resort to chance mechanisms like flipping a coin, and don’t trade decisions arbitrarily just so that things come out equally for people who remain committed to opposing views.
• Sixth, resolve gridlock earnestly. Stop and ask, “Have we really identified every possible feasible way that our group might act?” If group members simply can’t agree on one alternative, see if they can all find and accept the next-best option. Then, request an explicit statement from them that says they are prepared to genuinely commit themselves to that option.

One consensus decision-making variation calls upon a group’s leader to ask its members, before initiating a discussion, to agree to a deadline and a safety valve. The deadline is a time by which everyone in the group feels they need to reach a decision. The safety valve is a statement that says any member can veto the group’s will to act in a certain way, but only if he or she takes responsibility for moving the group forward in some other positive direction.

Although consensus entails full group participation and assent, it usually can’t be reached without a leader’s guidance. For example, imagine a college president who is a master at escorting his executive team to consensus. Without coercing or rushing them, he regularly involves them all in discussions and leads their conversations to a point at which everyone is nodding in agreement, or at least conveying that they accept a decision. Rather than leaving things at that point, however, the president generally says, “We seem to have reached a decision to do XYZ. Is there anyone who objects?” Once people have this last opportunity to add their own further comments, the group moves forward with a sense that it has a common vision in mind.

Consensus decision-making is easiest within groups whose members know and respect each other, whose authority is more or less evenly distributed, and whose basic values are shared. Some charitable and religious groups meet these conditions and have long been able to use consensus decision-making as a matter of principle. The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, began using consensus as early as the seventeenth century. Its affiliated international service agency, the American Friends Service Committee, employs the same approach. The Mennonite Church has also long used consensus decision-making.

Groupthink

This Groupthink section is adapted from Principles of Management, by Saylor Academy [Author removed at request of original publisher], licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Have you ever been in a decision-making group that you felt was heading in the wrong direction, but you didn’t speak up and say so? If so, you were a groupthink victim. Groupthink is a group pressure phenomenon that increases the group’s risk of making flawed decisions by leading to reduced mental efficiency, reduced reality testing, and reduced moral judgment. According to Janis (1972), groupthink is characterized by the following eight symptoms:

1. Illusion of invulnerability shared by most or all group members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages them to take extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalizations, which is where members downplay negative information or warnings that might cause them to reconsider their assumptions.
3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, which may incline members to ignore their actions’ ethical or moral consequences.
4. Stereotyped out-group views occur, which is when groups discount rivals’ abilities to make effective responses.
5. Direct pressure occurs, which is placed on any member who expresses strong arguments against the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments.
6. Self-censorship occurs, which is when group members minimize their own doubts and counterarguments.
7. Illusion of unanimity occurs, which is based on self-censorship and direct group pressure; the lack of dissent is viewed as unanimity.be a b
8. Self-appointed mindguards emerge, which is where one or more members protect the group from information that runs counter to the group’s assumptions and course of action.

Groups that are large and that have members who like each other and are cohesive tend to suffer more from groupthink symptoms (Esser, 1998; Mullen et al., 1994). The assumption is that the more frequently a group displays one or more of the eight symptoms, the worse their decision-making quality is. However, if your group is cohesive, it is not necessarily doomed to engage in groupthink.

Recommendations for avoiding groupthink

The following are strategies for groups, individuals, and group leaders to avoid groupthink:

Groups:

• Discuss the groupthink symptoms and how to avoid them.
• Assign a rotating devil’s advocate to every meeting.
• Invite experts or qualified colleagues who are not part of the core decision-making group to attend meetings, get reactions from outsiders regularly, and share these ideas with the group.
• Encourage a difference-culture where different ideas are valued.
• Debate the decisions’ ethical implications and the potential solutions being considered.

Individuals:

• Monitor your own behavior for groupthink signs and modify the behavior if needed.
• Check yourself for self-censorship.
• Carefully avoid mindguard behaviors.
• Avoid putting pressure on other group members to conform.
• Remind members about the avoiding-groupthink-ground-rules if they get off track.

Group Leaders:

• Break the group into two subgroups from time to time.
• Have more than one group work on the same problem if time and resources allow it. This makes sense for highly critical decisions.
• Remain impartial and refrain from stating preferences at the decision’s outset.
• Encourage members to critically evaluate deliberations throughout.
• Create an anonymous feedback channel where all group members can contribute if desired.

How do we use the Nominal Group Technique to choose our team name and team speech topic?

For this section, we’ll discuss a decision-making process called the Nominal Group Technique, which includes ways a group can choose a team name or a team speech topic. The following guidelines relate to choosing a team name, but they can be modified to choose a team speech topic as well.

Each member privately writes down a list of all team names they like.

Choose a person to record name findings.

When everyone has finished writing, all members share their entire list. This is more helpful than group brainstorming because it prevents group members from accidentally criticizing another member’s ideas before he or she has a chance to voice them.

The recorder writes down a master list with all the team names suggested.

Now, begin group brainstorming. Remember, do not criticize ideas at this stage. You can modify names or piggy back one name on another. Maybe someone’s suggestion triggers an idea for a new name. The recorder writes down all the ideas.

When the team has exhausted ideas, it is time to evaluate the possible team-name choices and ways to vote: either by secret ballot or openly. Does majority rule? Do you want two-thirds of the group to be in favor? Do you want full consensus? It’s up to the group.

When you use this same technique to choose your Team Speech Topic, decide on a great resource that you would like the group to use, such as a library, a specific database, or a certain search engine. What will it be? There are so many great resources—some obvious and some almost hidden. Find the resource that the group feels greatly benefits them all.

Not Helpful Task Roles

Not all task roles are created equally. Some are much more helpful than others. Here are some to stay away from.

• Dominator: talks and does not allow anyone else to talk
• Blocker: negative resistant behavior, groundless disagreement
• Avoider: non-involvement, does not contribute ideas or communicate
• Recognition Seeker: calls attention to self
• Distractor: goes off on tangents, irrelevant
• Slider: does little or no work, procrastinates

Helpful Relationship Roles

• Harmonizer: helps settle differences
• Sensor: expresses group mood and feelings
• Tension Reliever: creates fun and uses humor to diffuse tense situations
• Listener: hears content and feeling

Not Helpful Relationship Roles

• Clown: distracts from task with self-focused play
• Captain Oblivious: disconnected
• Disconbobulator: keeps group in upheaval
• Criticizer: attacks persons, not issues

How do we use the Nominal Group Technique to choose our Team Name and Topic?

We are going to teach you two great ways to make decisions in your team. The first one you are going to use to make a decision as to what your team name should be. This decision making process is call the Nominal Group Technique.

1. Each member privately writes down a list of all team names they like.
2. When everyone has finished writing, all members share their entire list. (This is more helpful than brainstorming as a group right away because it prevents group members from accidentally criticizing another member’s ideas before they have a chance to be seen.
3. The Recorder writes down a master list with all the team names suggested.
4. Now as a group brainstorming can begin. Remember, no criticism of ideas at this stage. You can modify names, piggy back one name on another. Maybe someone’s suggestion triggers an idea for a new name. All these ideas are written down by the Recorder.
5. When the team has exhausted ideas, the team can choose a team name. Now is the time you can evaluate the possible choices. You can decide to vote either by secret ballot or openly. Does majority rule? So you want 2/3rd of the group to be in favor. Do you want full consensus? Up to you.

You can use this same technique to choose your Team Speech Topic. You need to decide on a great resource here at SLCC that you would like to persuade your fellow students to use. What will it be? There are so many great resources, some obvious and some almost hidden. Find one you feel would be a great benefit to your fellow students.

What is the Reflective Thinking Process?

The next most valuable group problem-solving process is called the Reflective Thinking Process. This process is useful for groups who want to create a team speech topic. It requires that the group first decides what research to use and who does what part.

Begin OER Small Group Communication: Chapter 11 Engaging in Group Problem-Solving Press Books

The Reflective Thinking Process: A Group Problem-Solving Framework

The reflective thinking process is a problem-solving framework proposed by American scholar John Dewey in which individuals or groups actively, persistently, and carefully consider a belief or knowledge, the grounds that support that knowledge, and the conclusions formed from that knowledge. (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). There are several similar problem-solving variations based on Dewey’s model. As you read through the following process, think about how to apply these steps to organize your group’s speech. Some steps are straightforward, and they offer strategies that one would logically use anyway when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem-solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups who do not have an established working history and who only meet occasionally. Although it is suggested that a group attend to each step, caution suggests that group leaders or other group problem-solving facilitators do not dogmatically follow each process element or force a group along. Such inflexibility will limit group-member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

During step one, the group defines the problem by considering three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage:

• What is the current difficulty?
• How did we come to know that the difficulty exists?
• Who/what is involved?
• Why is it meaningful/urgent/important?
• What have the effects been so far?
• What, if any, difficult elements require clarification?

At the end of this stage, the group will compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem, called a problem statement. Avoid wording or questions that hint at potential solutions.

For example, a small group formed to investigate city officials’ ethical violations creates the following problem statement:

• Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report city officials who are suspected of ethical violations.

Here’s another simple example:

• Poor: How can I find a podium? This is poor because it indicates the solution is a podium in the problem statement. We need to ask what do we need the podium for? If it is to put my notes on, could there be another solution?
• Better: What can hold my notes? Now, a lot more solutions are available: a table, a stack of books, a student could hold my notes, an upside down garbage can works too, etc.

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During step two, the group analyzes the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members discuss the potential causes—why the problem is happening. This is a good time for members to create an agenda or timeline for their problem-solving process by looking ahead to the other steps.

Here are two examples of “why” questions that the example group formed to address ethics violations:

• Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do similar-sized cities have such a mechanism?

Once the problem has been analyzed, the group poses a “how” problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions.

• How can citizens report suspected city officials’ ethical violations and how will such reports be processed and addressed?

As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, and the group has moved on to a more in-depth problem discussion.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During step three, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. This is where brainstorming techniques to enhance creativity may be useful to the group. Again, don’t evaluate solutions at this point, only propose and clarify. Ask questions about what “could” we do to address this problem, not what “should” we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking, “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, group members must generate solutions for each problem’s part separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink.

For the problem question previously posed, the group generates solutions for the problem’s three parts included in the question. For example,

• For the first problem part—How can citizens report ethical violations? Possible solutions are to use online reporting systems, e-mail, report in-person or anonymously, report on-the-record, and so on.
• For the second problem part—How will reports be processed? Possible solutions are daily, by a newly appointed ethics officer; weekly, by a nonpartisan non-government employee; and so on.
• For the third problem part—How will reports be addressed? Possible solutions are by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager, and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During step four, groups critically evaluate solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions are narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group analyzes each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny are wise to make a criteria list to use to evaluate each solution. Additionally, groups can evaluate solutions based on how well they fit with the group’s mission and the groups’ abilities. To do this, group members ask the following:

• Does this solution live up to the group’s original purpose or mission?
• Can we actually implement the solution with our current resources and connections?
• How is this solution supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?

Often, group members conflict during this problem-solving step and must employ effective critical thinking and listening skills. For example, to narrow the proposed solutions list, group members can decide to do the following:

• Vote by majority, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing until a consensus is reached.
• Implement the six-hats method, which is a more complex decision-making model that we discuss later in this chapter.

Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator confirms that the group is in agreement. It is beneficial for the group to break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

During step five, the group implements the solution, which requires some advanced planning. Do not rush this process unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or unless a delay leads to some harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As noted earlier, it is beneficial for groups to poll those who are affected by the solution about their opinion, or even do a pilot test to observe the solution’s effectiveness and how people react to it.

Before implementing the solution, groups must determine how and when they will assess the solution’s effectiveness by asking the following:

• How will we know if the solution is working or not?”

Since solution assessments vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups must also consider the following questions:

• If the group disbands after we implement the solution, who is responsible for assessing the solution?
• If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene? Or, will a new group be formed?

Certain solution elements must be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may be assigned to implement a particular solution part based on their decision-making role or because the solution part connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing or “selling” the solution to a particular stakeholder group. Last, the group must consider its future. In some cases, the group can decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

Six-Thinking-Hats Method

Edward de Bono developed the Six-Thinking-Hats method in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in business and professional problem-solving and decision-making training contexts (de Bono, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see problems or decisions from multiple viewpoints. The premise is that each hat represents a different way to think, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their thinking style are as follows:

• White hat. Objective—focuses on seeking information, such as data and facts, and then neutrally processes that information.
• Red hat. Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
• Black hat. Critical—focuses on potential risks, points out possible failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
• Yellow hat. Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes; gives constructive and positive feedback; points out benefits and advantages.
• Green hat. Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions; thinks outside the box.
• Blue hat. Process—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the groups’ thinking and communication; facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Use specific sequences or hat combinations to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader wears the blue hat and suggests that the group start their decision-making process with some “white hat thinking” to process facts and other available information. During this stage, the group also processes the decisions and solutions of other groups who have faced similar problems.

Next, the leader begins an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “yellow hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “black hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “red hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “green hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or that are completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the “blue hat” leader summarize what was said and begins a new sequence.

To successfully use this method, the person wearing the blue hat must be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Limit each thinking round to a certain time, such as two to five minutes, to keep the discussion moving.

This problem-solving method has been praised because it allows group members to switch thinking gears and to allow for role-playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. Here are some questions to consider when using the six-hat method.

1. How does this method help to enhance critical thinking?
2. Which hat combination do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
3. What hat combinations are useful if the leader wants to break the larger group up into pairs, and why? For example, what thinking results from putting yellow and red hats together, or black and white hats together, or red and white hats together, and so on?
4. Based on your preferred thinking process and your personality, which hat is the best fit for you? Which is the most challenging? Why?

References

Adams, K., & Galanes, G. G. (2009). Communicating in groups: Applications and skills (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Bormann, E. G., & Nancy C. Bormann, N. C. (1988). Effective small group communication (4th ed). Burgess CA.

Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies. (2016). University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.0401. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Little Brown.

Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.

Hartley, P., & Dawson, M. (2010). Success in groupwork. St. Martin’s Press.

Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Random House

An Introduction to Group Communication. (2012). https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/an-introduction-to-group-communication/index.html. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.

Linabary, Jasmine R. (2021). Small Group Communication. Pressbooks publishing. https://smallgroup.pressbooks.com/front-matter/about/. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Miner, F. C. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 112–124.

Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 310–335.

Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204.

Parker, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Meeting excellence: 33 tools to lead meetings that get results. Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, R. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 313–324.

Principles of Management. (2012). Saylor Academy. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-management-v1.1/. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Roch, S. G. (2007). Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benefits of anticipated discussion, consensus, and rater motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 14–29.

Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.

Media References

Banks, C. (2019, April 18). We are better when we are united [Image]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/LjqARJaJotc

Dalmulder, M. (2017, February 19). Dragon Boat Races [Image]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/61063858@N02/32940411536

Hristov, T. (2020, February 14). Long exposure, single image [Image]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/iJ-uantQb9I

Morillo, C. (2018, June 22). Woman in black coat [Image]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-in-black-coat-1181346/