Our team approached the design mini-projects through extensive dialogue. A the first meeting for each project, we would talk about the prompt and share any details about benefits and constraints that we were already aware of. We would then do further research to build on our knowledge before we discussed all that we had learned and chose a problem to focus on. We then would discuss ideas for requirements. During this stage, I would often play the role of gatekeeper. I would encourage those who had not yet contributed to speak up and try to prevent other members of the group from dominating the conversation. In addition to this "maintenance" role, I also took on many other "task" roles, such as time-keeper, facilitator, and note-taker. I made sure that the group stayed on topic and on schedule, in addition to recording all group members ideas.
About half of the work for our projects was done individually, with meetings then used to integrate our work and information. The other half of the work was completed in group sessions, this included tasks such as determining requirements, generating ideas, and filtering and selecting concepts. These were activities where the multiple perspectives of group members were not only helpful but necessary, as opposed to research and writing, which were accomplished much more efficiently on an individual basis.
Group cohesiveness and trust between members is also a determining factor in group structure and process. If team members like each other, and trust that each will do their best to move the team to a positive outcome, there will be less conflict within the team and less need for external motivation from outside of the team. My MAE451 team did not know each other particularly well, and had relatively low committment to working as a team. Members were only concerned with group outcomes as far as it affected them as individuals. This was a very unhealthy team dynamic, and lead to destructive individual behaviors that hampered the effectiveness of the team. Negative norms were established early, such as not being prepared for meetings, casual internet usage during research sessions, and being late or absent from team meetings.
Team process is also often adjusted in order to avoid conflict. For example, my MBA team is a mix of Judgers and Perceivers, as well as Sensors and Intuiters. We disagree on how and when an assignment can be completed most effectively, so elements of our group process are designed to account for this. Intuiters do most of the early work on the project, dealing with the big picture, while sensors focus most of their efforts on the tasks they enjoy most and are best at, making sure the details are perfect. We also set ourselves fake deadlines- so that the Perceivers are satisfied with their ability to make changes up to the very last minute and the Judgers do not have nervous breakdowns as the real deadline begins to approach.
Team function is also determined by the skill of each team member. Effective team behaviors take a lot of practice to master, and having team members who are unskilled at teamwork can damage a team's efforts and necessitate a change in the way the team functions. My MBA team functioned for the first semester by allowing group members to choose which part of each assignment they would like to be responsible for, under the belief that people put more effort into work that they have chosen themselves. We quickly learned, however, that one member of our group would never volunteer for any tasks, and would only work if he had been assigned something. Our team had to switch from a positive, healthy team behavior to a potentially toxic one in order to accommodate our team member's lack of skill.
No comments:
Post a Comment