Discussion board | Applied Sciences homework help

1. Disagreements occur frequently but are usually resolved quickly.

Source: Wheelan, S. A., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Kline, S. F., “Member Perceptions of Internal Group Dynamics and Productivity,” Small Group Research, 29, 1998, 371–393. In some cases, team members announce their individual goals. In other cases, though, stating a personal goal outright could be embarrassing or counterproductive. A committee member would not confess, “I volunteered to serve on this committee so I could find new people to date.” An employee would never say openly, “I’m planning to learn everything I can here and then quit the firm and open my own business.” Personal goals that are not made public are called hidden agendas. Hidden agendas are not necessarily harmful. A member’s dating goals need not interfere with team functions. Similarly, many other personal motives are not threatening or even relevant to a team’s business. Some hidden agendas may even be beneficial. For instance, an up-and-coming young worker’s desire to communicate his competence to the boss by volunteering for difficult jobs might help the team. According to international team consultant Frank Heckman, the “bottom line is that we all have personal agendas and to some degree, some are hidden even to us.”51 Other hidden agendas, however, are harmful. As Heckman notes, “the problem will come in if the individual is duplicitous and undermines what the team is trying to achieve.”52 Two feuding members who use meetings to disparage each other can only harm the team, and the person collecting ideas to go into business himself will most likely hurt the organization when he takes its ideas elsewhere. There is no single best way to deal with harmful hidden agendas. Sometimes the best course is to bring the goal out into the open. For example, a manager might speak to feuding subordinates one at a time, let them know she recognizes their problem, and work with them to solve it directly and constructively (probably using the conflict management skills described in Chapter 5 ). When you do decide to bring a hidden personal goal into the open, it is almost always better to confront the member privately. The embarrassment of being unveiled publicly is usually so great the person becomes defensive and denies the hidden goal exists. 436 At other times, it is best to treat a hidden personal goal indirectly. For example, if a member’s excessive talking in meetings seems to be a bid for recognition, the best approach 214 might be to make a point of praising that individual’s valid contributions more frequently. If two feuding subordinates continue to have trouble working together, the manager can assign them to different projects or transfer one or both of them to different teams. Promote Desirable Norms Norms are informal, often unstated rules about what behavior is appropriate.53 Some norms govern the way tasks are handled, while others shape the social interaction of the team. A team’s norms are often shaped by the culture of the organization to which it belongs. For example, 3M’s success has been attributed to its “bias for yes”: When in doubt, employees are encouraged to take a chance instead of avoiding action out of fear of failure.54 Likewise, Motorola’s turnaround has been attributed to its changing norms for conflict. The company’s culture now makes it acceptable to disagree strongly (and loudly) in meetings instead of keeping quiet or being overly diplomatic.55 As Table 7-4 shows, the norms in some teams are constructive, whereas other teams have equally powerful rules that damage their effectiveness.56 The challenge of establishing norms is especially great when members come from different cultural backgrounds.57 For example, team members from a low-context culture (such as the United States or Canada) would be more likely to address conflicts directly, whereas those from high-context backgrounds (East Asia or the Middle East, for example) would be inclined to use indirect approaches. Likewise, members from a background where 215 high power distance is the norm would be less likely to challenge a team’s leader than those from a background where low power distance is the norm. 437 Table 7-4 Typical Constructive (and Destructive) Norms for a Team Handle (Ignore) business for coworkers who are away from their desks. Be willing (Refuse) to admit your mistakes. Occasional time off from work for personal reasons is (isn’t) okay, as long as the absence won’t harm the company. Do (Don’t) be willing to work overtime without complaining when big, important deadlines approach. Say so (Keep quiet) if you disagree. Don’t (Do) hint or go behind others’ backs. Avoid (Hold) side conversations during meetings. Don’t (Do) interrupt or ignore others’ ideas. Arrive on time (Be late) for meetings. Celebrate (Don’t celebrate) successes. Honor (Shirk) your commitments. Source: Baum, J. A. C. (n.d.). “Avoiding Common Team Problems,” Rotman School of Management. Retrieved from http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/?baum/mgt2003/avoid.html Self-Assessment Evaluating Your Team’s Communication Effectiveness Use this inventory to identify how well your team is performing these important communication practices. As a Team, How Well Did You: Not Well Very Well Define or clarify the task 1 2 3 4 5 Exchange and share information 1 2 3 4 5 Encourage expression of various points of view 1 2 3 4 5 Evaluate and analyze data 1 2 3 4 5 Use the best decision-making approach (e.g., consensus, majority rule) 1 2 3 4 5 Focus on tasks, not on individuals 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate respect for all 1 2 3 4 5 438 Encourage feedback 1 2 3 4 5 Encourage expression of opinion 1 2 3 4 5 Build on others’ ideas 1 2 3 4 5 Ask for clarification of ideas 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate equality 1 2 3 4 5 Address disagreements or misunderstandings 1 2 3 4 5 Stay on task 1 2 3 4 5 Once norms are established, members who violate them may create a crisis for the rest of the team, who may respond in a series of escalating steps.58 Consider, for example, 216 a worker who violates the norm of not following up on her obligations between team meetings. Her teammates might react with increasing pressure: Delaying action. Members talk among themselves but do not approach the deviant, hoping she will change without pressure. Hinting about the violation. Members tease the violator about being a “flake” or about being lazy, hoping the message behind the humor will cause her to do her share of the work. Discussing the problem openly. Members confront the nonconformist, explaining their concerns about her behavior. Ridiculing and deriding the violator. Persuasion shifts to demands for a change in behavior; the team’s pressure tactics may well trigger a defensive response in the nonconforming member. Rejecting or isolating the deviant. If all other measures fail, the team member who does not conform to team norms is asked to leave the group. If the person cannot be expelled, other members can excommunicate the deviant by not inviting her to meetings and by disregarding any attempts at communicating she might make. There are two ways in which an understanding of norms can help you to function more effectively in a team. 439 Create Desirable Norms Early Norms are established early in a team. Once they exist, they are difficult to change. Thus, when you participate in a team that is just being established, you should do whatever you can to create norms you think will be desirable. For example, if you expect committee members to be punctual at meetings, it is important to begin each session at the appointed time. If you want others to be candid about their feelings, it is important to be frank yourself and encourage honesty in others at the outset. Comply with Established Norms Whenever Possible In an established team, you have the best chance of reaching your goals if you handle the task and social relationships in the team’s customary manner. If your coworkers are in the habit of exchanging good-natured insults, you should not be offended when you are the target—and you will be accepted as one of them if you dish out a few quips yourself. In a team in which the norm is never to criticize another member’s ideas directly, a blunt approach probably will not get you very far. When you are entering an established team, it is wise to learn the norms by personal observation and by asking knowledgeable members about them before plunging in. The national or regional culture can also shape the way team members communicate with one another. Differences in managing conflict are a good example. The straight-talking, low-context style that is accepted in many parts of the English-speaking world is not the norm in other places.59 Of course, it may not always be possible to follow established norms. If a team is in the habit of cracking racist jokes, doing shabby work, or stealing company property, for example, you would probably be unwilling to go along just to be accepted. This sort of conflict between personal values and team norms can lead to a major crisis in values. If the potential for conflict is great enough and the issue is sufficiently important, you may decide to do whatever you can to join a different, more compatible team. Promote an Optimal Level of Cohesiveness Cohesiveness can be defined as the degree to which members feel themselves to be part of a team and want to remain with that team. You can think of cohesiveness as a magnetic force that attracts members to one another, giving them a collective identity. As you might suspect, highly 440 cohesive teams have happier members than less closely knit groups. Workers who belong to cohesive teams are likely to have higher rates of job 217 satisfaction and lower rates of tension, absenteeism, and turnover than those who belong to less cohesive ones.60 They also make better decisions.61 ETHICAL challenge The Unproductive Teammate You are a member of what was once a dream team of productive workers. Until recently, everyone worked well together to meet the team’s goals. When one member took time off to care for a child who was hospitalized a few months ago, everyone was happy to cover for him. Over the next months, however, the same member began missing more work because of other problems—a spouse needing care, a sports injury, and moving to a new home. The rest of the team has begun to doubt their unproductive colleague will ever contribute his fair share to the team again, and they agree it is time to raise this issue. Describe how the team can deal with this issue in a way that acknowledges both the unproductive member’s legitimate problems and the team’s need for the member to do his share. Not all cohesive teams are productive—at least not in terms of the organization’s goals. In strikes and slowdowns, for example, highly cohesive workers can actually shut down operations. (Of course, the workers’ cohesiveness in such cases may help them to accomplish other team goals, such as higher pay or safer working conditions.) In less dramatic cases, cohesiveness in observing anti-organizational norms (“Don’t work too hard,” “Go ahead and report our lunch as a business expense—we always do that,” “If you need some art supplies for your kids, just take them from the supply closet”) can leave team members 441 feeling good about one another but raise ethical issues and harm the organization’s interests. Finally, too much cohesiveness can lead to the kinds of “groupthink” described on pp. 219–220. Cohesiveness develops when certain conditions exist in a team. Once you understand these conditions, you can apply them to groups on or off the job. You can also use them to analyze why a team’s cohesiveness is high or low and choose ways to reach and maintain a desirable level of cohesiveness. The remainder of this section presents seven factors that promote an optimal level of cohesiveness.62 Shared or Compatible Goals Team members draw closer together when they have a similar aim or when their goals can be mutually satisfied. For instance, the members of a construction crew might have little cohesiveness when their pay is based on individual efforts, but if the entire crew receives a bonus for completing stages of the building ahead of schedule, the members are likely to work together better. Progress toward Goals When a team makes progress toward its target, members are drawn together; when progress stops, cohesiveness decreases. Members of the construction crew just mentioned will feel good about one another when they reach their target dates or can reasonably expect to do so; however, if they consistently fall short of meeting those targets, they are likely to get discouraged and feel less attraction to the team. When talking to their families or friends, there will be less talk about “us” and more about “me.” Shared Norms or Values Although successful teams tolerate or even thrive because of some differences in members’ expressed attitudes and behaviors, wide variation in what members consider appropriate behavior reduces cohesiveness. For example, a person who insists on wearing conservative clothes in a business where everyone else dresses casually probably will not fit in with the rest of the group. Minimal Feelings of Threat among Members In a cohesive team, members usually feel secure about their status, dignity, and material and social well-being. When 218 442 conflict arises over these issues, results can be destructive. For example, if all of the junior executives in a division are competing for the same senior position—especially if senior positions rarely open—the team’s cohesiveness is likely to suffer, at least until the job is filled. ©Ingram Publishing RF Interdependence among Members Teams become more cohesive when members need one another to satisfy team goals. When a job can be done by one person alone, the need for unity decreases. An office team in which each member performs a different aspect or stage of a process will be less cohesive than one in which members rely on one another. 443 Competition from Outside the Team When members perceive an external threat to their existence or dignity, they draw closer together. Almost everyone knows of a family whose members seem to fight constantly among themselves until an outsider criticizes one of them. The internal bickering stops for the moment, and the team unites against the common enemy. A fractured team could draw together in a similar way when another group competes with it for such things as use of limited company resources or desirable space in a new office building. Many wise managers deliberately set up situations of competition between teams to get tasks accomplished more quickly or to generate more sales. Shared Team Experiences When members have shared an experience together, especially an unusual or trying one, they draw closer together. This phenomenon explains why soldiers who have gone through combat together often feel close for the rest of their lives. Teams that have accomplished difficult tasks are also likely to be more cohesive. Some organizations also provide social events such as annual “retreats” for their executives. These retreats might include high-ropes courses, workshops, sports events, and parties. Annual sales meetings, although not the most cost-efficient way to distribute sales information, are often partially intended to increase team cohesiveness. Avoid Excessive Conformity Bad group decisions can also come about through too much agreement among members. Irving Janis calls this phenomenon groupthink, an unwillingness, for the sake of harmony, to examine ideas critically.63 Janis describes several characteristics of groups that succumb to groupthink: Illusion that the group is invulnerable: “We can afford to raise the price on our deluxe-model kitchen appliances because they’re so much better than anything else on the market. Even if our competitors could develop comparable models, we’d still outdo them on style.” Tendency to rationalize or discount negative information: “I know the market research says people will buy other brands if our prices go up any more, but you know how unreliable market research is about things like that.” 444 Willingness to ignore ethical or moral consequences of the team’s decision: “The waste we’re dumping in the river may kill a few fish, but look, this company provides jobs and a living for all the people who live in this town.” 219 Stereotyped views of other teams: “The only thing those people at the head office care about is the bottom line. They don’t care a whit about what we think or what we need.” Team pressure to conform: “Come on, none of the rest of us is interested in direct-mail marketing. Why don’t you forget that stuff?” Self-censorship: “Every time I push for an innovative ad campaign, everybody fights it. I might as well drop it.” Illusion of unanimity: “Then we all agree: Cutting prices is the only way to stay competitive.” “Mindguards” against threatening information: “They’re talking about running the machines around the clock to meet the schedule. I’d better not bring up what the supervisor said about how her staff feels about working more overtime.” CAREER tip Devil’s Advocate and Other Anticonformity Tools Since medieval times, the Catholic Church has appointed a “devil’s advocate” to present all possible arguments—even seemingly slight ones —against promoting a candidate toward sainthood. The church recognizes the danger of one-sided enthusiasm and relies on the advocate to make sure decision makers consider all sides of the issue. This approach can serve nonreligious groups just as well, especially when an undisputed consensus arises regarding an important decision. If your team does not have the foresight to appoint a devil’s advocate, you can take on this role by challenging the majority’s thinking. 445 Other approaches can serve as antidotes to groupthink. If the team has enough members, it can be helpful to set up two (or more) subgroups to consider approaches independently. Another approach is to request the opinions of respected outsiders who have not been influenced by the collective enthusiasm of members. Diversity of voices can serve as an antidote to groupthink by broadening outlooks and enriching discussions. However, one study found multicultural teams might be inclined toward groupthink if their awareness of cultural differences creates a desire to avoid conflict.64 A second type of harmful conformity, sometimes casually referred to as “mob mentality,” has been labeled risky shift, referring to the likelihood of a group taking positions that are more extreme than the members would choose on their own.65 Although risky shifts may result in teams taking unjustified risks and suffering the costs, some evidence suggests that many individuals are more willing to take a significantly higher level of risk for themselves than when others’ payoffs are at stake.66 At the opposite end of the spectrum, some people in groups shift toward a safer, more conservative behavior, known as cautious shift. When group members are conservative, their collective decisions are likely to be more cautious than their individual positions.67 Thus, risky shift results in avoiding necessary steps that the team needs to take to survive and prosper. Paradoxically, cohesive teams are most prone to groupthink and shift. When team members like and respect one another, the tendency to agree is great. The best way to guard against this sort of collective blindness— especially in highly cohesive teams—is to seek the opinions of outsiders who may see things differently. In addition, influential leaders should avoid stating their opinions early in the discussion.68 220 MASTER the chapter 446 review points Small groups share characteristics of size, interaction, shared purpose, interdependence, regular interaction and communication, and identity. Effective teams are productive, demonstrate competence, and have members who are committed to their decisions. Virtual teams transcend time and space boundaries, but present both advantages and challenges. The best approach to group leadership depends on the circumstances. In groups with a designated leader, the optimal style depends on leader–member relations, the structure of the task, and the leader’s power. In groups with no designated leader, a predictable process occurs in which a single leader often emerges. Leadership is often shared among members who possess various types of power: position, coercive, reward, expert, referent, information, and connection. Members contribute to team effectiveness by enacting functional roles (both task and relational) while avoiding dysfunctional roles. Teams can be more successful when members recognize and try to fulfill both personal and team goals, promote desirable norms, promote an optimal level of cohesiveness, avoid excessive conformity, and boost creativity. key terms authoritarian leadership style cautious shift coercive power cohesiveness connection power contingency approaches to leadership democratic leadership style designated leader 447 emergent leader expert power functional roles groupthink hidden agenda information power laissez-faire leadership style leader–member exchange (LMX) norms position power referent power relational roles reward power risky shift self-directed work teams servant leadership situational leadership model style approach to leadership task roles team trait approach to leadership transformational leadership virtual team workgroup activities 1. Invitation to Insight Consider an effective team you have observed or participated in. Identify the characteristics that contributed to this team’s productivity. Provide an example of how the team enacted each of these characteristics. Then use 448 concepts from this chapter to suggest at least one way the team could have improved.