This Document Contains Chapters 7 to 8 7. Decision Making and Creativity SOLUTIONS TO CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. A management consultant is hired by a manufacturing firm to determine the best site for its next production facility. The consultant has had several meetings with the company’s senior executives regarding the factors to consider when making the recommendation. Discuss the decision-making problems that might prevent the consultant from choosing the best site location. Answer: This question directly relates to the section on evaluating and choosing solutions. The consultant is asked to determine the best site location, and this process is subject to the problems presented below. Each problem should include an example relating to this incident. Problems with Goals. The consultant likely discovered that executives at the manufacturing firm are not fully agreed on the priority of factors to consider when choosing a site. They may have conflicting goals – such as a site that is conveniently located yet low cost. Some of the goals will be ambiguous, such as “convenience.” Problems with Information Processing. The consultant is subject to the same human limitations as other people. The consultant’s personal biases may cause some information to be screened out or viewed in an unrealistically favorable light. The consultant is unable to evaluate all possible sites (there must be thousands of them!), let alone consider every factor for each site. Finally, the consultant probably compares sites against an implicit favorite, rather than look at all prospective sites simultaneously. Problems with Maximization. The consultant’s recommendation probably won’t be the absolutely best site. Given the volume of information and the sequential decision process, the recommended site is probably one that is “good enough.” In other words, the consultant will satisfice. 2. You have been asked to personally recommend a new travel agency to handle all airfare, accommodation, and related travel needs for your organization of 500 staff. One of your colleagues, who is responsible for the company’s economic planning, suggests that the best travel agent could be selected mathematically by inputting the relevant factors for each agency and the weight (importance) of each factor. What decisionmaking approach is your colleague recommending? Is this recommendation a good idea in this situation? Why or why not? Answer: The rational choice paradigm approach is being recommended for this decision. The idea that relevant factors should be identified and weighted is good. At least this would help us think about which factors are most important for the company. These could include such factors as, cost, speed of service, quality of service, etc. However, his suggestion that the best decision could be arrived at mathematically is somewhat misleading. While the rational choice paradigm may rest on the assumption that people evaluate and choose the best alternatives logically, that is not borne out by empirical evidence. OB experts have demonstrated that decision-makers may not choose the best alternatives for a variety of reasons. For example, decision makers have limited information processing abilities, evaluate alternatives sequentially and against implicit favorites, and are influenced by perceptual errors, biases and emotions. Moreover, when it comes to making a final choice their decisions are often made on the basis of satisficing rather than maximization. 3. Intuition is both an emotional experience and a nonconscious analytic process. One problem, however, is that not all emotions signaling that there is a problem or opportunity represent intuition. Explain how we would know if our “gut feelings” are intuition or not, and if not intuition, suggest what might be causing them. Answer: All gut feelings are conscious awareness of emotional experiences. However, not all emotional experiences constitute intuition. Intuition involves using well established mental models and templates (derived from tacit knowledge we have acquired) to compare what fits or doesn’t fit in an observable situation. The unconscious comparison allows us to anticipate future events. Intuition also relies on action scripts, which are preprogrammed routines for responding to matched or mismatched patterns. These scripts allow us to act without having to consciously evaluate the alternatives. Gut feelings, on the other hand, are not based on well-grounded templates or mental models. Therefore, gut feelings would be more likely to occur in situations where one has limited experience. The cause of these feelings would be due to some emotional reaction to a given situation. 4. A developer received financial backing for a new business financial center along a derelict section of the waterfront, a few miles from the current downtown area of a large European city. The idea was to build several high-rise structures, attract large businesses to those sites, and have the city extend transportation systems out to the new center. Over the next decade, the developer believed that others would build in the area, thereby attracting the regional or national offices of many financial institutions. Interest from potential business tenants was much lower than initially predicted and the city did not build transportation systems as quickly as expected. Still, the builder proceeded with the original plans. Only after financial support was curtailed did the developer reconsider the project. Using your knowledge of escalation of commitment, discuss three possible reasons why the developer was motivated to continue with the project. Answer: Escalation of commitment occurs when an individual repeats a bad decision or continues to allocate resources to a failing cause of action. This incident is a variation of the Canary Wharf project in London, which nearly put developer Olympia and York into bankruptcy. It is unfair to say that the Canary Wharf event was due to escalation of commitment (we don’t have enough information about the internal decision making), but the incident described here certainly provides a setting for discussion of this topic. There are four main causes of escalation Self-justification effect. Canceling the development may have suggested that the developer (who originally proposed and championed the project) made a bad decision whereas continuing the development would be vote of confidence towards his/her leadership ability. The developer also may have continued the project if he/she had linked it to the company’s future success. To reverse this position would convey an image of inconsistent leadership. Self-enhancement effect. The developer likely screened out or neutralized negative information because of a self perception of being above average. In addition, the project was clearly high risk (redesigning a significant portion of the city), so the developer seems to exhibit self-enhancement in the form of perceiving a higher probability of success in spite of these risks. In other words, decision makers falsely believe that luck is on their side, so they invest more in a losing course of action. Prospect theory effect. The discomfort associated with losing money on this project may have outweighed the desire for gains. In other words, knowing that stopping the project would mean certain loss, he/she was willing to go to great lengths to avoid this, even it meant a smaller pay off in the end. Sunk costs effect. Discontinuing the project would almost certainly have high financial costs for the developer, such as past expenditures and canceling contracts. The amount of investment “sunk” into the project would have motivated the developer to continue investing further even if those investment resources would have been more productive elsewhere. 5. Ancient Book Company has a problem with new book projects. Even when others are aware that a book is far behind schedule and may engender little public interest, sponsoring editors are reluctant to terminate contracts with authors whom they have signed. The result is that editors invest more time with these projects than on more fruitful projects. As a form of escalation of commitment, describe two methods that Ancient Book Company can use to minimize this problem. Answer: The textbook identifies four strategies to improve decision evaluation: Separate chooser from implementers. The most effective strategy is to separate decision choosers from decision implementers. This minimizes the problem of saving face because the person responsible for implementation and evaluation would not be concerned about saving face if the project is cancelled. Establish a stop-loss decision rule. Another way to minimize escalation of commitment establish a preset level at which the decision is abandoned or reevaluated. The problem with this solution is that conditions are often so complex that it is difficult to identify an appropriate point to abandon a project. However, this approach may work if a stopping point can be determined and it is established by someone other than the decision maker. Find systematic and clear feedback. The clearer the feedback, the more difficult it is to deny that the project has problems. Unfortunately, this solution is rarely available because many decisions have only ambiguous feedback. Involve more than one person in the initial decision. It may be less likely two or more people would be similarly attached personally with the decision. However, this action is also likely the least effective among these four. 6. A fresh graduate is offered a job by an employer she admires even before she can start her job search. The student thinks it is an opportunity and jumps to it. Do you think there is an effect of emotions in her decision making? Answer: The rational choice paradigm assumes that decision makers follow the systematic process. However, emotions affect the evaluation of alternatives. Emotional marker process determines our preferences for each alternative before we consciously think about those alternatives. The student probably has done this in the given situation. Emotions also influence the process of evaluation. Therefore, the student probably has been quick to choose an employer she admires here and has been biased towards other alternatives if any. Emotions also serve as information when we evaluate alternatives. Hence, the student perhaps was swayed by her emotional reaction, however, she still seems to be informed by reasons of why she admired the employer in the first place. 7. Think of a time when you experienced the creative process. Maybe you woke up with a brilliant (but usually sketchy and incomplete) idea, or you solved a baffling problem while doing something else. Describe this incident to your class and explain how the experience followed the creative process. Answer: For this question, students should be encouraged to think about a recent project they may completed and done well (e.g. major research project). They may initially recall the event in a general sense, but should strive to divide it according to the four stages outlined in the creative process model The insight stage should be particularly relevant since it is the point at which one idea may come while thinking or doing something else. Students should try to remember how the idea came to them and how they documented and tested it. Once done, they may be able to also recall the previous stage (incubation). I once had a creative breakthrough while brainstorming for a marketing campaign. The idea came to me during a casual walk when I realized we could use an interactive social media challenge to engage our audience. This experience followed the creative process: preparation (researching and understanding the market), incubation (letting the idea simmer subconsciously), illumination (the "aha" moment during the walk), and verification (developing and refining the concept with the team). The campaign was a success, boosting engagement significantly. 8. Two characteristics of creative people are that they have relevant experience and are persistent in their quest. Does this mean that people with the most experience and the highest need for achievement are the most creative? Explain your answer. Answer: The answer is probably “No”. The textbook states that there is a dilemma regarding experience. On the one hand, people need plenty of experience to be familiar with the issues. The literature on creativity suggests that it may take several years of experience before a person has reached creative potential. The dilemma is that the longer a person is in one field of study, the more he/she develops a mental model that stifles creativity. Some companies prefer people with no experience in an industry so they are more creative. These two points are not exactly contradictory – a person may be new to an industry but has many years of experience in a particular skill or trade. However, the issue does suggest that there is an optimal level of experience before mental models undermine creative potential. It is less certain whether creativity continues to increase with need for achievement. The textbook explains that need for achievement makes creative people more persistent, which is necessary in the face of short-term failures and doubts from others. Would a very strong need for achievement undermine creative potential? This is a matter for debate. Most likely too much need for achievement will create blind drive which can prevent people from seeing alternative strategies and the obvious inappropriateness of existing routes. 9. Employee involvement applies just as well to the classroom as to the office or factory floor. Explain how student involvement in classroom decisions typically made by the instructor alone might improve decision quality. What potential problems may occur in this process? Answer: Problem identification. Because students have a different perspective than the instructor, their involvement might help identify issues or problems the instructor was unaware of. This could lead to improvements in the quality of the learning experience. Generating alternatives. Student involvement could potential improve the number and quality of solutions generated. This typically happens when more people look for solutions, because individuals have different perspectives. Better solutions. The likelihood of choosing the best solution, from the list of alternatives generated, would be increased due to diverse perspectives and values. Increased commitment. When students are involved in identifying the issues, generating alternative solutions, and choosing a solution they may also feel more committed to the decision taken. Increased perception of fairness. Being involved in the process, may also promote a sense of fairness among students. To avoid problems with this process, limits should be placed on the extent of participation, and the number of issues requiring student involvement. For example, the determination of grades should be left up to the instructor. The types of questions and weightings of exams should also be predetermined. The instructor would have to make sure all students are equally involved to avoid a small influential and vocal group of students from dominating the others. Lastly, the instructor should be mindful that increasing student involvement requires more time, which may in turn reduce teaching time. CASE INCIDENTS: EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT INCIDENTS Scenario Synopsis These four scenarios provide an excellent opportunity for students to discuss the conditions under which various levels of employee involvement should be applied. To decide the best level, students should consider the benefits of and problems with employee involvement described in this chapter. Suggested Answers to Case Questions The five levels of involvement identified in each of the three scenarios is as follows: Decide alone. Use your personal knowledge and in- sight to complete the entire decision process without conferring with anyone else. Receive information from individuals. Ask specific individuals for information. They do not make recommendations and might not even know what the problem is about. Consult with individuals. Describe the problem to selected individuals and seek both their information and recommendations. The final decision is made by you, and you may or may not take the advice from these others into account. Consult with the team. You bring together a team of people (all department staff or a representation of them if the department is large), who are told about the problem and provide their ideas and recommendations. You make the final decision, which may or may not reflect the team’s information. Facilitate the team’s decision. The entire decision- making process is handed over to a team or commit- tee of subordinates. You serve only as a facilitator to guide the decision process and keep everyone on track. The team identifies the problem, discovers alternative solutions, chooses the best alternative, and implements their choice. Scenario 1: The Productivity Dividend Decision Situation: As head of the transmission/distribution group (TD group) in the city’s water agency, students have been asked to reduce costs over the next year and need to determine whether and to what extent to involve the 300 employees in the business unit. 1. To what extent should your employees be involved in this decision? Select one of the following levels of involvement: Answer: Most teams will likely identify a medium high level of involvement (consult with the team), although some tend to suggest lower involvement (receive information from individuals or consult individuals only). 2. What factors led you to choose this alternative rather than the others? Answer: This question can be answered by reviewing the four contingencies of employee involvement discussed in the textbook. Decision structure: This decision has low structure. The scenario provides a situation that is relatively complex and require a variety of knowledge sources. Consequently, some level of involvement will be necessary. Source of decision knowledge: This scenario states that you have limited knowledge relative to employees, and that even supervisors two levels below you lack sufficient details about the work to provide enough information. Therefore, it will be necessary to involve front-line employees. Furthermore, given the complexity of the business and dispersion of knowledge at the front lines, it is reasonable to argue that “receiving information from individuals” would be too low a level of involvement. the reason is that you would not know what information to request. Therefore, involvement probably needs to include describing the problem to employees. However, this medium-level involvement also carries risks because of the risks of conflict between employees and the company, discussed below. Decision commitment. There isn’t any direct information about employee commitment to decisions under various levels of involvement. However, since a moderate level of involvement is probably necessary (see above), this may be sufficient if any commitment is otherwise lacking. Risk of conflict. There are two dimensions of this contingency. First, with respect to goal compatibility between employees and the company, this is a very high risk because the productivity dividend decisions may eventually have negative consequences for employees. The union clearly opposes the initiative and might encourage some employees to make decisions for their personal or union’s benefit without consideration of other stakeholder needs (e.g. lower costs to consumers). Even if employees ignore the union’s warnings, they might make decisions that work well for their unit but result in higher cots elsewhere in the organization. The scenario states: “employees may be unaware of or care little about these repercussions, because there is limited interaction with or social bonding by employees across the departments.” The second potential risk of conflict – employees may have difficulty agreeing among themselves – might occur because the unit has diverse employees with different skills and knowledge. It doesn’t seem that this risk is very high, but it is a reasonable possibility. For example, some employees might suggest changes to another job group in the TD Group, which causes employees in the affected group to oppose that idea. Overall, the conflict among employee discourages high involvement, but will support a medium level of involvement. 3. What problems might occur if less or more involvement occurred in this case (where possible)? Answer: A high degree of involvement is likely problematic because of the risk of conflict between employees and the organization’s interests and with other work units in the organization. There may also be conflict among employees within the TD Group because some decisions may have adverse effects on specific subgroups in that unit. A low level of involvement, including deciding alone and receiving information from individuals, would be too low due to your lack of knowledge about how to find ways to improve efficiency and even lack of knowledge about what questions to ask front-line staff on this matter. The business is too complex. Scenario 2: The Sugar Substitute Research Decision Situation: As head of research and development (R&D) at a major beer company, students are asked to determine whether and to what extent to involve the department’s researchers in allocating budget for further research on a new sugar substitute into which one researcher has tentatively discovered. 1. To what extent should your employees be involved in this decision? Select one of the following levels of involvement: Answer: Most teams will likely identify some level of consultation, although some tend to suggest high involvement (facilitate the team’s decision). The answer to the next question explains why medium involvement is probably best here. The levels of employee involvement in decision-making can vary. Here are some options to choose from: 1. No Involvement: The decision is made by management without employee input. 2. Consultation: Employees provide feedback, but management makes the final decision. 3. Joint Decision-Making: Management and employees collaborate and make the decision together. 4. Delegated Decision-Making: The decision-making authority is fully delegated to employees. Please select one of these levels for the specific situation you're considering. 2. What factors led you to choose this alternative rather than the others? Answer: This question can be answered by reviewing the four contingencies of employee involvement discussed in the textbook. Decision structure: This decision has low structure. The incident says that there is a decision process for funding projects behind schedule, but there are no rules or precedents about funding projects that would be licensed but not used by the organization. Consequently, some level of involvement may be valuable. Source of decision knowledge: The incident clearly says that the sugar substitute project is beyond your technical expertise and that it is difficult to determine the amount of research required. Scientists have information unavailable to the leader, but they would not have sufficient information to make the decision alone. Overall, this suggests that some involvement (consultation with individuals or the team) is desirable. Decision commitment. This might be debatable, but most employees know that funding decisions are ultimately in the hands of executives who must take responsibility for those decisions. Also, it sounds like past funding decisions are made by the leader, not employees (mainly due to conflict problems described below). Moreover, employees don’t implement anything as a result of this decision, so there is probably minimal adverse effect of low commitment. Risk of conflict. There are two dimensions of this contingency. First, with respect to goal compatibility between employees and the company, the incident says that you believe that most researchers in the R&D unit are committed to ensuring company’s interests are achieved. Second, it is almost certainly true that conflict will occur among employees. This is a win-lose situation where funding one project reduces or eliminates funding on other projects. Overall, the conflict among employees means that the decision should not be given to the team, but consultation with individuals or the team is fine. 3. What problems might occur if less or more involvement occurred in this case (where possible)? Answer: A higher degree of involvement would probably be difficult because of the problem of conflict among employees. Employees could not agree because a decision to fund the project would reduce their own funding. A low level of involvement would lose some of synergy of discussion about the issue. This synergy brings out valuable information and potentially more creative solutions to the problem. Scenario 3: Coast Guard Cutter Decision Problem Situation: Students are placed in the role of a captain of a Coast Guard cutter who is searching for a plane that has crashed offshore. After 20 hours of searching, a major storm is approaching and the captain must decide whether to abandon the search or to continue and place the ship at risk. Students must determine whether and to what extent to involve the crew in the decision. 1. To what extent should your employees be involved in this decision? Select one of the following levels of involvement: Answer: The preferred level of involvement is “Decide alone” (no involvement). Specifically, the captain would solve the problem or make the decision him/herself using information available at the time. 2. What factors led you to choose this alternative rather than the others? Answer: This question can be answered by reviewing the four contingencies of employee involvement discussed in the textbook. Decision structure: This decision probably has high structure because the captain must ultimately protect the ship and crew, or would have reasonably clear rules on taking this sort of risk. Source of decision knowledge: The captain has as much information as anyone on the ship about which option to select. Decision commitment. The crew will likely support the captain’s decision without any involvement. Risk of conflict. There is a reasonable possibility that crew members will be divided (i.e., conflict will occur) over the preferred alternative. 3. What problems might occur if less or more involvement occurred in this case (where possible)? Answer: The main problem with applying a higher level of employee involvement here is that the problem is well structured and the time-consuming process may be redundant. There is also a chance that subordinates would engage in dysfunctional conflict if they were asked to make the decision. Scenario 4: Social Media Policy Decision Situation: Students are placed in the role of head of the state government’s industry initiatives agency. Comments from potential applicants have led you to consider having a social media policy in the agency, particularly to have workrelated sites they can access and develop during work hours. Students are asked to determine whether and to what extent employees should be involved in forming a social media policy within the agency. 1. To what extent should your employees be involved in this decision? Select one of the following levels of involvement: Answer: Most teams will likely identify a medium high level of involvement (consult with individuals and/or the entire agency). Employees should be involved at the Consultation level, where they provide feedback, but management makes the final decision. 2. What factors led you to choose this alternative rather than the others? Answer: This question can be answered by reviewing the four contingencies of employee involvement discussed in the textbook. Decision structure: This decision has low structure because there is no existing standard policy in the state government or even within the department to which the agency reports. Consequently, some level of involvement will likely to be valuable. Source of decision knowledge: The scenario reveals that although you are interested and intrigued by the potential of social media, you lack sufficient information relative to the professionals in your agency, particularly younger staff. It is unclear whether you have enough information about social media to ask others for specific information. Generally, some level of involvement is required, possibly at least telling others about the problem (need for a policy). Decision commitment. It is apparent that some people strongly support (and current have) social media at work, whereas others are opposed. Involving people in the social policy decision to some degree might increases support for the final decision because at least everyone has had their voice heard on this matter. Therefore, most students would likely suggest that the agency head needs to tell the problem to others and consult as many people as possible (individually, possibly in groups). Risk of conflict. There are two dimensions of this contingency. First, conflict will almost certainly occur among employees because the scenario describes opposing views. Some actively use social media and support it, whereas others are apparently strongly opposed to the activity in the workplace. As such, the final decision must rest with the agency head (the highest level of involvement is excluded). Regarding the second risk of conflict, it is unclear whether there will be goal compatibility between employees and the agency or state government. However, the first conflict precludes the highest involvement even if employees would decide in the agency’s best interests. Overall, the conflict among employees discourages high involvement, but will support a medium level of involvement involving consultation with individuals and possibly at a group level. 3. What problems might occur if less or more involvement occurred in this case (where possible)? Answer: Due to the risk of conflict among employees, a high degree of involvement (facilitate the team’s decision) would likely result in no decision due to lack of agreement. A low level of involvement – where the agency heads asks specific employees for information without describing the issue – may be possibly, but carries two risks. First, the agency head might not have enough knowledge to know what information to request. Second, there is a risk of lack of employee commitment because the issue is polarized. Giving everyone an opportunity to present their views may increase acceptance of the decision whichever way it goes. TEAM EXERCISE: WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE WE? Purpose This exercise is designed to help students to understand the potential advantages of involving others in decisions rather than making decisions alone. Materials Students require an unmarked copy of the map of Canada with grid marks (provided in the textbook). Students are not allowed to look at any other maps or use any other materials. The instructor will provide a list of communities located somewhere on Exhibit 2 (see next page of this manual). The instructor will also provide copies of the answer sheet after students have individually and in teams estimated the locations of communities ( see two pages forward in this manual). Instructions Step 1: Students are asked to write down in Exhibit 1 the list of communities identified by the instructor. Then, working alone, students estimate the location in Exhibit 2 of these communities, all of which are in Canada. For example, they would mark a small “1” in Exhibit 2 on the spot where they believe the first community is located. They would mark a small “2” where they think the second community is located, and so on. Students need to number each location clearly and with numbers small enough to fit within one grid space. Step 2: The instructor will organize students into approximately equal sized teams (typically 5 or 6 people per team). Team members should reach a consensus on the location of each community listed in Exhibit 1. The instructor might provide teams with a separate copy of this map, or each member can identify the team’s numbers using a different collared pen on their individual maps. The team’s decision for each location should occur by consensus, not voting or averaging. Step 3: The instructor will provide or display an answer sheet, showing the correct locations of the communities. Using this answer sheet, students will count the minimum number of grid squares between the location they individually marked and the true location of each community. Students then write the number of grid squares in the second column of Exhibit 1, then add up the total. Next, they count the minimum number of grid squares between the location the team marked and the true location of each community. They should then write the number of grid squares in the third column of Exhibit 1, then add up the total. Step 4: The instructor will ask for information about the totals and the class will discuss the implication of these results for employee involvement and decision making. Comments to Instructors This exercise demonstrates the importance of employee involvement for better decision making. Generally, teams make better decisions than do individuals working alone. This is reflected by a “Team Score” that is usually lower than the “Individual Score.” This is particularly true in this exercise because students typically have varied backgrounds in terms of where they have lived or where their families live. Students currently in Vancouver might easily locate Bella Coola but not Estevan. But if one student was raised in Saskatchewan, the team will likely score higher than the average individual. The discussion following the exercise should focus on the reasons why groups tend to make better decisions. Specifically, team members bring diverse knowledge to the decision process, so the collective decision is usually more accurate than the typical individual’s decision. The instructor should also ask about situations in which team members ignored ideas from members who would have provided a more accurate solution. For example, a strong-willed team member might convince others that Estevan is in Ontario even though one team member is quite sure s/he drove through Estevan a few summers ago. Also inquire about power struggles in the groups. COMMUNITIES IN CANADA [Note: These names are NOT jumbled. This is how they are actually spelled. The names are not listed in any particular order.] 1. HANOVER 2. BELLA COOLA 3. GLACE BAY 4. GRANBY 5. ESTEVAN 6. INUVIK 7. MARATHON 8. CHURCHILL Solution to “Where in the World Are We?” Team Exercise SELF-ASSESSMENT: DO YOU HAVE A CREATIVE PERSONALITY? Purpose This self-assessment is designed to help you to measure the extent to which you have a creative personality. Overview and Instructions This instrument estimates the student’s creative potential as a personal characteristic. The scale recognizes that creative people are intelligent, persistent, and possess an inventive thinking style. Creative disposition varies somewhat from one occupational group to the next. This self-assessment consists of an adjective checklist with 30 words. Students are asked to put a mark in the box beside the words that they think accurately describe them. They MUST NOT mark the boxes for words that do not describe them. Students need to be honest with themselves to receive a reasonable estimate of their creative personality. Feedback for the Creative Personality Measure The table on the right (and applied to the graph in the student CD) is based on norms for undergraduate and graduate university students in the United States. Scores range from –12 to +18. People with higher scores have a higher creative personality. Score Interpretation +10 to +18 +1 to +9 -12 to 0 High creative personality Average creative personality Low creative personality 8. Team Dynamics SOLUTIONS TO CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. Informal groups exist in almost every form of social organization. What types of informal groups exist in your classroom? Why are students motivated to belong to these informal groups? Answer: Students should identify several types of informal groups in the classroom, depending on the characteristics of this class. Perhaps a few students share a ride to class or, at least, talk to each other on public transit systems. Other students go together for lunch or other meals. A few students might have gone through high school together and meet occasionally. Some students participate in sports activities after school or are part of college student groups. If students have difficulty thinking of informal groups, the instructor might begin with the question: “How many people in this room knew at least one other person before this class first met?” From there, the instructor might ask whether these people meet outside class in any way. The second part of this question relates to the reasons why informal groups exist. These include: (1) to fulfil relatedness needs, (2) social identity, (3) to achieve nonwork goals, and (4) to receive social support that relieves stress. For example, some students gather for a snack during class break or after class simply because they enjoy each other’s company. For social identity, some people like to belong to groups that are popular or respected, such as college sports teams. Some informal groups fulfil nonwork goals, such as providing transportation to get to class. Lastly, some people are part of informal groups during stressful times. The instructor might note how students hang around together both immediately before and after a difficult final examination. 2. The late management guru Peter Drucker said: “The now-fashionable team in which everybody works with everybody on everything from the beginning rapidly is becoming a disappointment.” Discuss three problems associated with teams. Answer: The textbook describes the following troubles with teams: Teams aren’t always necessary. Companies tend to use teams as a solution to every problem that may exist. Yet some tasks are more effectively completed by individuals rather than teams. Process losses. Teams have costs beyond employees working alone. In particular, they require resources for team development and maintenance. Thus, we need to determine the cost-benefits of teams rather than assume they incur similar costs as individuals. Social loafing. Teams bring the problem of social loafing. Individuals tend to put forth less effort in certain team settings than when working individually. 3. You have been put in charge of a cross-functional task force that will develop enhanced Internet banking services for retail customers. The team includes representatives from marketing, information services, customer service, and accounting, all of whom will move to the same location at headquarters for three months. Describe the behaviours you might observe during each stage of the team’s development. Answer: Forming. The group would generally be polite (not pushy) and would defer to existing authority, such as the person who set up this group. Members would ask questions to help them make sense of their new environment. Storming. Team members assert themselves more clearly as they negotiate for roles and responsibilities. There will be disagreements as people vie for roles and try to influence team norms. Norming. Team members have the first real sense of cohesion as roles are established and a consensus forms around group objectives. They interact more efficiently and begin the process of understanding and accepting each other. Performing. Team members focus more fully on task performance. They coordinate their work smoothly, and demonstrate a high level of trust. Adjourning. Team members shift towards a more relationship orientation in their relationships as the team’s existence comes to an end. 4. You have just been transferred from the Montreal office to the Vancouver office of your company, a national sales organization of electrical products for developers and contractors. In Montreal, team members regularly called customers after a sale to ask whether the products arrived on time and whether they are satisfied. But when you moved to the Vancouver office, no one seemed to make these follow-up calls. A recently hired coworker explained that other co-workers discouraged her from making those calls. Later, another co-worker suggested that your follow-up calls were making everyone else look lazy. Give three possible reasons why the norms in Vancouver might be different from those in the Montreal office, even though the customers, products, sales commissions, and other characteristics of the workplace are almost identical. Answer: Both team norms and peer pressure to conform to those norms are operating in this incident. Team norms are informal rules and expectations that groups establish to regulate the behaviour of their members. In the Vancouver office, employees have a norm of not bothering with follow-up sales calls, whereas the Montreal office has a norm that encourages follow-up sales calls. Your experience (and the experience of the recently hired employee) were attempts at conformity because both of you violated the norm at the Vancouver office. Employees suggested that you change your behaviour. They made comments about the inappropriateness of making follow-up calls, implying that it was an act against other employees (it made them look lazy.) Students can describe any three of the following reasons why norms in Regina might be different from those in the Vancouver office. a. Team leaders or senior management in the Montreal office might have explicitly stated the importance of followup calls, whereas this might not be happening in the Vancouver office. b. The Montreal office might have had a critical event that encouraged more follow-up calls, such as a lost customer or comments from an important customer on the value of follow-up calls. The Vancouver office might not have had these critical events. c. The primacy effect might have shaped this norm at the two offices. For example, when the Montreal office was first started, the manager might have declared the importance of follow-up calls. d. This norm may have developed from the beliefs and values that members brought to the team. When the Vancouver office was first formed, for instance, the employees brought to that office might have had weak customer service values. 5. A software engineer in Canada needs to coordinate with four team members in geographically dispersed areas of the world. What team challenges might the team experience, and how will they affect the team design elements? Answer: A team is effective when it benefits the organization, its members, and its own survival. Particularly of challenge is the ability to maintain commitment of the team members during turbulent times. In the specific situation here, team members face an additional challenge of different time zones. The leader has to carefully design the team itself, including task characteristics, team size, team composition and team roles. In the specific situation, task interdependence is highest, it is the reciprocal interdependence where work output is exchanged back and forth between individuals who are operating from different time zones. Team size should be large enough to provide required competencies but small enough to maintain efficient coordination. Team composition must be such that besides providing technical skills, team members are also able and willing to work in a team environment. 6. You have been assigned to a class project with five other students, none of whom you have met before. To what extent would team cohesion improve your team’s performance on this project? What actions would you recommend to build team cohesion among student team members in this situation? Answer: Team cohesiveness can potentially have a significantly positive effect on the team’s performance. Indeed, instructors are usually aware of this advantage. Some are reluctant to let students form their own teams because those who have worked together in the past have a cohesiveness advantage over those who form a team with strangers. Members of cohesive teams spend more time together, share information more frequently, and are more satisfied with each other. They are generally more sensitive to each other's needs and develop better interpersonal relationships, thereby reducing dysfunctional conflict. When conflict does arise, members of high cohesion teams seem to resolve these differences swiftly and effectively. They also provide each other with better social support in stressful situations. Also note that cohesive teams necessarily have a higher level of team development. Consequently, they work together more efficiently (less process loss) and require less communication to coordinate work activities. Aside from these benefits, cohesive teams only perform better when their goals and values are aligned with the task. Some highly cohesive student teams perform poorly because they rely on team norms that do not support hard work to achieve a top grade. Instead, they put their energy more into having a good time during the project. 6. You have been assigned to a class project with five other students, none of whom you have met before, and some of whom come from different countries. To what extent would team cohesion improve your team’s performance on this project? What actions would you recommend to build team cohesion among student team members in this situation? Answer: Team cohesion can potentially have a significantly positive effect on the team’s performance. Indeed, instructors are usually aware of this advantage. Some are reluctant to let students form their own teams because those who have worked together in the past have a cohesiveness advantage over those who form a team with strangers. Members of cohesive teams spend more time together, share information more frequently, and are more satisfied with each other. They are generally more sensitive to each other's needs and develop better interpersonal relationships, thereby reducing dysfunctional conflict. When conflict does arise, members of high cohesion teams seem to resolve these differences swiftly and effectively. They also provide each other with better social support in stressful situations. Also note that cohesive teams necessarily have a higher level of team development. Consequently, they work together more efficiently (less process loss) and require less communication to coordinate work activities. Aside from these benefits, cohesive teams only perform better when their goals and values are aligned with the task. Some highly cohesive student teams perform poorly because they rely on team norms that do not support hard work to achieve a top grade. Instead, they put their energy more into having a good time during the project. In addition to the above, we know from cross cultural studies that some class members will contribute frequently, whereas others will not. Their reticence is not a lack of trust, nor interest in the project. Perhaps their language skills are not proficient, and their willingness to engage in team cohesion exercises may not be part of their culture. If some culture is not expected to say “no”, then it may be hard to assess their real interest. The first time the group gets together may be an excellent time to discuss what group norms should exist, and how the group should work together going forward. 7. Suppose you are put in charge of a virtual team whose members are located in different cities around the world. What tactics could you use to build and maintain team trust and performance, as well as minimize the decline in trust and performance that often occurs in teams? Answer: A common misconception is that team members build trust from a low level when they first join a team. According to recent studies, the opposite is actually more likely to occur. People typically join a virtual or conventional team with a high level—not a low level—of trust in their new team-mates. Declining trust is particularly challenging in virtual teams. Research identifies clear communication among team members is an important condition for sustaining trust. Virtual teams will need several communication channels available in order to off-set lack of face to face communication. In addition, team processes including virtual team development will require some face to face interaction, particularly when the team forms. The way work is organized is often the culprit in ineffective virtual team performance. As mentioned in the chapter, the work that is pooled, or sequential or even reciprocal is still predicated on “co-located” work. As we noted earlier, co-located work is much easier and in many cases preferred than globally-distributed work. Nevertheless, when work is globally distributed, handoffs can be “sticky” and thus everything we understand about co-located work is called into question when we have globally distributed work. Stickiness can be caused by everything mentioned thus far, but exacerbated in the international environment. 8. You are responsible for convening a major event in which senior officials from several state governments will try to come to an agreement on environmental issues. It is well known that some officials take positions to make themselves appear superior, whereas others are highly motivated to solve the environmental problems that cross adjacent states. What team decision-making problems are likely to be apparent in this government forum, and what actions can you take to minimize these problems? Answer: By reviewing the various problems with team decision making, students can identify a few problems in this situation. Here are the main issues that will likely be identified: a) Evaluation apprehension – with posturing and politicking, some officials may be reluctant to present ideas that initially seem silly or unintelligent. b) Pressure to conform – The emotionally-charged nature of this topic, as well as the strong positions held by some participants, may lead to pressure by some delegates to have others conform to the dominant views in the forum. c) Time constraints – As in any meeting, only one person can typically speak at one time, causing others to either forget their ideas while listening, or ignore what others are saying while they think through their own ideas. d) Inflated team efficacy – This is unlikely to be a problem in this situation. There is no evidence that this is a highly cohesive group (just the opposite!), so they won’t reinforce each other’s overconfidence. Also, there aren’t any apparent external threats sufficient to make this group feel bound together and distort their superiority (the differentiation effect discussed in Chapter 3). 9. The chief marketing officer of Sawgrass Widgets wants marketing and sales staff to identify new uses for its products. Which of the four team structures for creative decision making would you recommend? Describe and justify this process to Sawgrass’s chief marketing officer. Answer: Benefits. Brainstorming is the most popular structure for encouraging creative ideas. Brainstorming encourages divergent thinking while minimizing evaluation apprehension and other team dynamics problems. In addition brainstorming can bring benefits beyond the number of ideas produced. Brainstorming participants interact and participate directly, thereby increasing decision acceptance and team cohesiveness. Brainstorming rules tend to keep the team focused on the task. There is also evidence that effective brainstorming sessions provide valuable nonverbal communication that spreads enthusiasm. Team members share feelings of optimism and excitement which may encourage a more creative climate. By involving clients in brainstorming sessions, these positive emotions may produce higher customer satisfaction than if people are working alone. CASE STUDY: ARBRECORP LTÉE Case Synopsis ➡ NOTE: This is the “Treetop Forest Products” case, renamed because its popularity has resulted in case notes (even videos!) distributed across the internet. ArbreCorp Ltée is a sawmill operation in Quebec, Canada, that is owned by a major forest products company, but operates independently of headquarters. The mill is divided into six operating departments: boom, sawmill, planer, packaging, shipping, and maintenance. It won packaging quality awards over the past few years, but product quality has recently fallen and customers have switched to other producers. The planing and sawmilling departments have significantly increased productivity over the past couple of years, whereas the packaging department has decreasing productivity. This has resulted in a backlog of finished product, adding to Treetop’s inventory costs and the risk of damaged stock. The company pays packaging employees overtime to complete the work on Saturdays. The packaging department extends its lunch and coffee breaks, and usually leaves work early. The packaging department is located in a separate building from the others and has no supervisor. Note: This is a true case of a sawmill operation. Unfortunately, we don’t have information about the eventual outcome of this situation. Suggested Answers to Discussion Questions 1. What symptom(s) in this case suggest that something has gone wrong? Answer: The main symptom – negative outcome – in this case is that productivity of the packaging department is below the level that employees should be performing. Students should identify evidence of this performance “gap”, including (a) engineering estimates that output should be higher and (b) performance in this department was relatively higher in the past. In addition, students should identify specific evidence of non-productive behavior, including new staff reducing output after a short time and department staff taking long breaks and leaving work early. 2. What are the main causes of these symptoms? Answer: The main problem in this case is that the packaging department’s norms appear to conflict with organizational goals. there is subtle or indirect evidence that employees in this department are encouraged or supported for taking extra time off and that those who work harder are discouraged from doing so. Students should use the team cohesion-performance concept to explain how high cohesion and counterproductive norms result in lower team performance. As part of this analysis, students need to provide information suggesting that this team has high cohesion. Students should note that the organizational environment, task characteristics, and team size support high team cohesion. The team is relatively small, and they work together in a separate building away from others. This cohesion motivates employees to support the team's dominant norms. The problem, as mentioned, is that these norms are counterproductive. NOTE: This analysis can also be studied from the perspective of motivation. Students can use expectancy theory to explain why the packaging department is completing work late rather than on time. 3. What actions should executives take to correct these problems? Answer: Many students fall into the trap of recommending that the case will be solved through closer supervision. This may be true to some extent, but it creates other problems. Direct supervision is costly, and employees increasingly dislike situations where they are closely monitored. Direct supervision may be required in the short term to align behavior (e.g. working required hours), but there are better long term alternatives. Supervision is only one of three forms of “control” over employees, so students should also explore the other two (systems/structures and culture. values). The main problem is dysfunctional team norms, and the textbook identifies a few ways to change team norms. Some would be more feasible than others in this case. For example, this is an existing team, so it is too late to introduce performance-oriented norms as soon as the team is created. However, it is possible to formally announce the problem – both extra time off and delayed production – to the entire team. Asking them to help solve the problem might help to change the norm, but it might not if the norm is deeply entrenched. Another strategy is to select new team members who will bring desirable norms to the group. Unfortunately, this has already been tried – the positive norm employee changed to be like the others. Unless many new employees enter this group at the same time, the strategy may not work. Although the textbook is skeptical about the effectiveness of team-based rewards in changing norms, it might work here. Currently, packaging employees are really rewarded for supporting their norm – taking time off and getting lots of overtime for catching up on the backlog. They are essentially rewarded for working slowly during regular work hours. At the same time, they apparently receive no reward for efficiency or quality. A team reward for winning the quality award and for completing the work on time might alter the norms here. similarly, if feasible, the overtime to catch up on packaging backlog work might be given to employees from other departments who possess enough skill to complete packaging work. Disbanding the group and forming a new team is an option, but possibly expensive and disruptive. It takes time for new employees to learn the work practices and the strong action may adversely affect employee relations with others. There are many possible solutions here, including the above-mentioned reward system. One structural change would be to move the packaging work closer to the other employees. Line of sight relations with other employees might create a peer pressure situation whereby packaging employees are discouraged from working slowly and taking time off. Goal setting and feedback systems could be introduced that might change the behavior of packaging employees without more direct supervision. If they see trends in production and quality, perhaps their values will become more aligned with these goals. As mentioned, some students might recommend more supervision of the packaging employees. This might work, but it could be costly because the company will need to pay for one more supervisor. Moreover, direct supervision merely introduces the use of punishment rather than resolving the underlying root causes of the behavior. TEAM EXERCISE: TEAM TOWER POWER Purpose This exercise is designed to help students understand team roles, team development, and other issues in the development and maintenance of effective teams. Materials The instructor will provide enough Lego pieces or similar materials for each team to complete the assigned task. All teams should have identical (or very similar) amount and type of pieces. The instructor will need a measuring tape and stopwatch. Students may use writing materials during the design stage (Stage 2 below). The instructor will distribute a “Team Objectives Sheet” and “Tower Specifications Effectiveness Sheet” to all teams. (provided on the following pages of this instructor’s manual). Instructions Step 1: The instructor will divide the class into teams. Depending on class size and space available, teams may have between 4 to 7 members, but all should be approximately equal size. Step 2: Each team is given 20 minutes to design a tower that uses only the materials provided, is freestanding, and provides an optimal return on investment. Team members may wish to draw their tower on paper or flip chart to assist the tower’s design. Teams are free to practice building their tower during this stage. Preferably, teams are assigned to their own rooms so the design can be created privately. During this stage, each team will complete the Team Objectives Sheet distributed by the instructor. This sheet requires the Tower Specifications Effectiveness Sheet, also distributed by the instructor. Step 3: Each team will show the instructor that it has completed its Team Objectives Sheet. Then, with all teams in the same room, the instructor will announce the start of the construction phase. The time elapsed for construction will be closely monitored and the instructor will occasionally call out time elapsed (particularly if no clock in the room). Step 4: Each team will advise the instructor as soon as it has completed its tower. The team will write down the time elapsed that the instructor has determined. It may be asked to assist the instructor by counting the number of blocks used and height of the tower. This information is also written on the Team Objectives Sheet. Then, the team calculates its profit. Step 5: After presenting the results, the class will discuss the team dynamics elements that contribute to team effectiveness. Team members will discuss their strategy, division of labor (team roles), expertise within the team, and other elements of team dynamics. Comments for Instructors This is a fun, competitive, activity that suits a variety of organizational behavior topics (e.g. goal setting, organizational structure). It is presented here in the team dynamics chapter because some interesting team work is involved. One observation is how the work is divided up. One person tends to keep track of time; someone else tends to take over much of the design. In some teams, there is a clear leader to guide the group. In others, the team breaks into subgroups with a lack of coordination. It is also interesting to compare teams where students know each other well with teams consisting of strangers. The latter tend to require more time to organize themselves during the planning stage. When conducting this exercise, please remember that the specifications for height and number of pieces assume the use of Lego blocks. You should change these specifications if larger materials (e.g. straws) are used. Before beginning Stage 3, watch out for teams that have materials “pre-assembled”. Be sure that all blocks are separated before the teams construct their towers. I usually have students spread the blocks out on the floor, and I scramble them around just before construction begins. These towers must be free-standing, so they cannot touch walls or be held up by team members. If time permits, you may want to give teams a second run of the construction stage. Generally, teams are faster during the second run. This might be discussed in terms of team development (e.g. clearer assumptions and division of roles.) Team Objectives Sheet (STUDENT HANDOUT) Tower Specifications Effectiveness Sheet (Page 1) (Student Handout) TOWER SPECIFICATIONS EFFECTIVENESS SHEET (PAGE 2) (Student Handout) SELF-ASSESSMENT: WHAT TEAM ROLES DO YOU PREFER? Purpose This self-assessment is designed to help students to identify their preferred roles in meetings and similar team activities. Instructions Students are asked to read each of the statements and circle the response that they believe best reflects their position regarding each statement. Then use the scoring key (the scoring key is available online, or students can have this scored automatically online), they calculate their results for each team role. This exercise is completed alone so students assess themselves honestly without concerns of social comparison. However, class discussion will focus on the roles that people assume in team settings. This scale only assesses a few team roles. Feedback for the Team Roles Preferences Scale NOTE: This instrument calculates preferences on five team roles: encourager, gatekeeper, harmonizer, initiator, and summarizer. These are among the most important roles in teams, but keep in mind that teams have several other roles that are not measured by this scale. All of the team roles identified in this instrument use the following scoring interpretation. Score Interpretation 12 to 5 8 to 11 3 to 7 High preference Moderate preference Low preference Encourager People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to praise and support the ideas of other team members, thereby showing warmth and solidarity to the group. The average score in a sample of MBA students is 10.25. Gatekeeper People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to encourage all team members to participate in the discussion. The average score in a sample of MBA students is 10.0. Harmonizer People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to mediate intragroup conflicts and reduce tension. The average score in a sample of MBA students is 9.85. Initiator People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to identify goals for the meeting, including ways to work on those goals. The average score in a sample of MBA students is 9.79. Summarizer People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to keep track of what was said in the meeting (i.e., act as the team’s memory). The average score in a sample of MBA students is 8.44. Solution Manual for Organisational Behaviour: Emerging Knowledge, Global Insights Steven McShane, Mara Olekalns, Alex Newman, Angela Martin 9781760421649, 9780071016261
Download
Close
Close
