More Related Content
Similar to 4811367 (1).pdf (20)
Recently uploaded (20)
4811367 (1).pdf
- 1. Managing Change, Creativity & innovation 息 Patrick Dawson, Constantine Andriopoulos
- 2. The Group: Nurturing Teamwork Chapter 12
- 3. Lecture objectives 1. Appreciate the importance of the team in todays complex working environments. 2. Understand the differences between a group and a team. 3. Examine team-building interventions during change. 4. Explain the variables related to creative team inputs, processes, and outcomes as well as the moderating factors that may affect team performance. 5. Understand the value of brainstorming and its influence on the generation of ideas. 6. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of three different team problem-solving techniques, and to consider the suitability of these techniques for different problem-solving situations.
- 4. Why is collaboration important? Our society is complex and technologically sophisticated. Timely information is the most important commodity.
- 5. What is a group? How is it different from a team? A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who work together to achieve particular objectives. Formal Informal
- 6. What is a group? How is it different from a team? Katzenbach and Smith (1999) define a team as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.
- 7. Why do people join teams? (Robbins et al. 1994) Security Self-esteem Power Goal achievement
- 8. The Team Development Process (Tuckman and Jensen 1977) Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning
- 9. Why do teams fail? Hidden Agendas Lack of understanding Lack of leadership Wrong mix of team members Unhealthy team environment Treat a team like a group
- 10. Blind conformity People tend to even engage in illogical or bizarre behavior in order to guarantee acceptance by a group
- 11. Aschs experiment Does a person have the freedom to act independently? (6:1) X A B C
- 12. Groupthink Identify the reasons that forced these committees to make bad decisions Groupthink is defined by Janis (1972) as: the psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision-making groups.
- 13. Preventing groupthink (Janis, 1972) 1. Voice their opinions or express their concerns 2. Prepare and anticipate criticism 3. Get recommendations from different groups 4. Periodically divide the group 5. Invite outsiders 6. Play the devils advocate role 7. Reconsider the action plan
- 14. Social loafing the tendency for people in a group to slack off Thompson (2003) Causes Equity of effort Loss of personal accountability Motivational loss due to the sharing of rewards Co-ordination loss as more people perform the task
- 15. Team-building interventions during change 1. Confrontation meetings 2. Responsibility charting 3. Appreciative inquiry
- 16. Creative teams: What do we know?
- 17. Team size The output of creative ideas on a per-employee basis decreased as team size increased (Bouchard and Hare, 1970; Renzulli et al. 1974) Creative Production Percent (CPP) improves with a decrease in team size until it reaches the group size of two, or dyads Why does this happen? The dyads experience a unique and exclusive one-to-one capability to share and exchange ideas superior when project teams are required to break away from the usual or functional intellectual set
- 18. Team longevity Interpersonal interaction as the primary means of gathering and collecting information or ideas (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997, 2000) A lot of processes, ideas or products/services are still complicated The longer groups have been in existence, the less innovative they become (Katz, 1982)
- 19. Reasons Tended to be staffed by older employees Members tended to interact significantly less among themselves
- 20. Task Creative work can occur at any occupation, where the task at hand involves complex, ill-defined problems, where the result requires the generation of novel and useful ideas (Mumford and Gustafson, 1988) It requires teamwork and the integration of specialized capabilities
- 21. Knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) Individuals must be competent and they must possess the necessary KSAs Without input there can be no output People who generate innovative ideas need to know the basic knowledge of their fields It is important to consider the different KSAs that their team members are bringing into the project
- 22. Resourcing the team Everything that the organization has to assist their employees work Funds, material resources, systems and processes (Amabile and Gryskiewicz, 1989) The lack of project resources can constrain employees creativity
- 23. Team composition Most teams struggle to pull together the right skills, attitudes, behaviors, and problem-solving styles to achieve adequate team diversity and cohesiveness Milliken and Martins (1996) distinguish between two types of diversity: 1) observable or readily detectable attributes, 2)Less visible or underlying attributes
- 24. Team composition Diversity can either enhance or hinder creativity Homogeneity among group members is not particularly facilitative for creative group outcomes
- 25. Problem-solving Creative problem solving usually involves three key stages: 1. Define the problem 2. Generate ideas 3. Decide on the most feasible and valuable solution
- 26. Brainstorming One of the earliest attempts to develop a structured approach Generated by Alex Osborn in 1938 (BBDO) He came up with some rules designed to improve team problem-solving Osborn labeled these as brainstorming as this means using the brain to storm a problem
- 27. Rules for successful brainstorming (Osborn, 1963) Criticism of ideas should be abolished Welcome free-wheeling Go for large quantities of ideas Combination and improvement need to be sought
- 28. Advantages of brainstorming The generation of hundreds of ideas Supports the organizational memory Improved morale
- 29. Advantages of brainstorming Gain better understanding of each other Personal growth Relatively inexpensive Impressing clients
- 30. Disadvantages of brainstorming The generation of ideas without screening them It may not always be the answer to problems
- 31. Electronic brainstorming A new form of computer technology called a Group Support System (GSS) has emerged in the 1990s The principle behind it is that participants contribute their ideas anonymously to a general pool
- 32. The five stages of the electronic brainstorming process (Gallupe and Cooper, 1993) 1. Generating ideas 2. Editing ideas 3. Evaluating ideas 4. Implementing ideas 5. Action
- 33. Advantages of electronic brainstorming Simultaneous entry of ideas Anonymity Better ideas are generated It can be effective to large teams It records the ideas for future sessions
- 34. Disadvantages of electronic brainstorming It is not a panacea for all problems Communication speed Overload of ideas It is relatively expensive
- 35. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) Participants within this type of team never interact Process: 1. It starts with a session of brainwriting where team members write down their ideas 2. Individuals written lists are then shared by the team and are recorded somewhere where all participants can view them 3. The team discusses the generated set of ideas for clarification and evaluation 4. Finally, each person is asked to vote in order to identify the highest priority ideas or concepts
- 36. Advantages of the nominal group technique It addresses some of the deficiencies of brainstorming (e.g. evaluation apprehension) It may also be a time-saving technique NGT is also very effective in situations when judgment is important
- 37. Disadvantages of the Nominal Group Technique It focuses on one issue at a time NGT is a structured team problem solving technique NGT is not a spontaneous process
- 38. Interpersonal processes Trust (the team is perceived as interpersonally non- threatening) Conflict (several benefits) Team cohesiveness
- 39. Team Outcomes: Does brainstorming work in practice? Nearly all laboratory studies conducted over the last 40 years have discovered that brainstorming sessions lead to the generation of fewer ideas 1. Evaluation apprehension 2. Social loafing (or free-riding) 3. Production blocking
- 40. Team outcomes: Does brainstorming work in practice? An interesting explanation is given by Sutton and Hargadon (1996: 688) who argued that participants: (1) had no past or future task interdependence (2) had no past or future social relationships (3) didnt use the ideas generated (4) lacked pertinent technical expertise (5) lacked skills that complement other participants (6) lacked expertise in doing brainstorming (7) lacked expertise in leading brainstorming sessions
- 41. Summary points A group can be defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who work together to achieve particular objectives. The key distinguishing factors of teams are team members complementary skills, their commitment to a common purpose, performance goals, and mutual accountability. Inputs to a teams creative process include the size of the team, resources that are made available, team longevity, task, KSAs, and team composition. The most common creativity-enhancement technique is brainstorming.
- 42. References Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1989) The creative environment scales: the work environment inventory, Creativity Research Journal, 2: 23154. Asch, S. (1951) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments, in H. Guetzkow (ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. New York: Carnegie Press. Bouchard, T.J. and Hare, M. (1970) Size, performance and potential in brainstorming groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, 54: 515. Carron, A. (1982) Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations, Journal of Sport Psychology, 4: 12338. Gallupe, R.B. and Cooper, W.H. (1993) Brainstorming electronically, Sloan Management Review, 35: 2736. Hargadon, A.B. and Sutton, R.I. (1997) Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 71649. Hargadon, A.B. and Sutton, R.I. (2000) Building the innovation factory, Harvard Business Review, 78 (3): 15766. Janis, I.L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Katz, R. and Allen, T.J. (1982) Investigating the not invented here syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups, R&D Management, 12: 719.
- 43. References Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The discipline of teams, Harvard Business Review, 83 (7/8) (MarchApril): 16271. Milliken, F. and Martins, L. (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups, Academy of Management Review, 21: 40233. Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988) Creative syndrome: integration, application and innovation, Psychological Bulletin, 103: 2743. Osborn, A. (1963) Applied Imagination, 3rd edn. New York: Charles Scribners Sons. Renzulli, J.S., Owen, S.V. and Callahan, C.M. (1974) Fluency, flexibility and originality as functions of group size, Journal of Creative Behavior, 8: 10713. Robbins, S., Waters-Marsh, T., Cacioppe, R. and Millett, B. (1994) Organisational Behaviour. Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia. Thompson, L. (2003) Improving the creativity of organisational work groups, Academy of Management Executive, 17: 96109. Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M.A.C. (1977) Stages of small group development revisited, Group and Organizational Studies, 2: 41927.