CH-7-8 Decision Making and Creativity – Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge, Global Reality : Book Guide

This Document Contains Chapters 7 to 8 Chapter 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 decision making 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. Cancelling 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 cancelling 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. Ancient Book Company can implement clear project milestones and regular progress reviews to identify lagging projects early and reassess their viability. Additionally, fostering a culture that encourages open communication and constructive feedback can empower editors to make objective decisions about terminating unproductive projects without fear of repercussions. These measures can help mitigate the tendency for escalation of commitment and ensure resources are allocated efficiently. 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). While hiking, a solution to a coding problem suddenly struck me. It felt like a eureka moment, following the incubation stage of the creative process where my mind subconsciously mulled over the problem. This sudden insight, triggered by the change in environment, led to the illumination stage where the solution became clear, showcasing the creative process in action. 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. While relevant experience and persistence are important for creativity, they alone do not guarantee it. Creativity also relies on factors like openness to new ideas, ability to think divergently, and willingness to take risks. Therefore, individuals with diverse experiences and a balance of relevant expertise and openness to innovation are often the most creative, rather than solely those with the most experience and achievement orientation. 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: 1. For the "Decide alone" level of involvement, discuss a scenario in which this approach might be appropriate in a workplace setting. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of making decisions independently, considering factors such as decision urgency, expertise required, and organizational culture? Answer: Decide alone. Use your personal knowledge and in- sight to complete the entire decision process without conferring with anyone else. 2. For the "Receive information from individuals" level of involvement, discuss a scenario in which this approach might be suitable in a workplace context. What types of situations or decisions would warrant seeking information from specific individuals without asking for recommendations? Consider the potential benefits and limitations of this level of involvement, such as efficiency, information accuracy, and employee engagement. Answer: Receive information from individuals. Ask specific individuals for information. They do not make recommendations and might not even know what the problem is about. 3. For the "Consult with individuals" level of involvement, discuss a scenario in which this approach might be appropriate in a workplace setting. What factors would influence the decision to seek both information and recommendations from selected individuals? How might this level of involvement enhance decision-making processes while balancing the need for autonomy and leadership direction? Answer: 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. 4. For the "Consult with the team" level of involvement, discuss a scenario in which this approach might be suitable in a workplace context. What are the potential benefits of involving a team in decision-making processes, and how might this level of involvement contribute to employee engagement and organizational effectiveness? Additionally, what challenges or considerations should be addressed when implementing this level of involvement? Answer: 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. 5. For the "Facilitate the team’s decision" level of involvement, discuss a scenario in which this approach might be appropriate in a workplace setting. What are the potential benefits of empowering a team to make decisions independently, and how might this level of involvement foster employee empowerment and collaboration? Additionally, what considerations should be taken into account to ensure successful implementation of this approach? Answer: 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). Consult with the team. Bring together the 300 employees in the TD group to discuss cost reduction strategies. Seek their ideas and recommendations while retaining the final decision-making authority. This level of involvement fosters employee engagement and ensures diverse perspectives are considered in the decision-making process. 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. Consult with individuals. Describe the budget allocation problem to selected researchers and seek their information and recommendations. This approach balances input from experts while retaining final decision-making authority. 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. Consult with the team. By involving the department's researchers in budget allocation, diverse perspectives and expertise can be leveraged to make informed decisions about further research on the sugar substitute. This approach fosters collaboration, promotes buy-in from team members, and ensures that decisions align with the collective knowledge and goals of the R&D department. 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. Decide alone. Given the time-sensitive and high-risk nature of the decision, relying on personal knowledge and experience ensures swift action and accountability. This approach prevents delays in decision-making and minimizes potential confusion or dissent among the crew in a critical situation. 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 work related 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). Consult with the team. Engage employees in discussions about developing a social media policy to gather insights and ensure buy-in, while retaining final decision-making authority to ensure alignment with agency goals and regulations. 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. Consult with individuals. Gathering input from specific employees allows for targeted insights while maintaining control over the policy's development and ensuring alignment with agency objectives. 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 the United States of America and a scoring sheet that includes names of communities in the United States, both of which are provided on the next two pages of this instructor’s guide. Students are not allowed to look at any other maps or use any other materials. After students have individually and in teams estimated the locations of communities, the instructor will also provide copies of the answer sheet ( see four pages forward in this manual). Instructions Step 1: Working alone, students estimate the location on the U. S. map the location of the communities listed. All of the communities listed are found in the U. S. 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 the scoring sheet, 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, 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 Montana might easily locate Missoula but not Carrizozo. The discussion 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 class should also explore why some individuals score lower than the team. Students will usually point out that they were unsure of their knowledge, so did not push their point of view. Occasionally (but not often stated in class), individual students dominate the discussion, thereby preventing more knowledgeable students from presenting their information. COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES [Note: These names are NOT jumbled. This is how they are spelled. The names are not listed in any particular order.] 1. AYDEN 2. CARRIZOZO 3. HEALDTON 4. MORRILTON 5. TIVERTON 6. TUMWATER 7. VIDOR 8. MISSOULA Student Handout: Answer to “Where in the World Are We?” CLASS EXERCISE: HOPPING ORANGE EXERCISE Purpose This exercise is designed to help students understand the dynamics of creativity and team problem solving. Instructions Students are placed in teams of six students. One student serves as the official timer for the team and must have a watch, preferably with stop watch timer. The instructor will give each team an orange (or similar object) with a specific task involving use of the orange. Each team will have a few opportunities to achieve the objective more efficiently. The instructor will read the following instructions. These instructions ARE NOT provided in the textbook so students have not had an opportunity to think about the exercise beforehand. “The task for this exercise is to have each team member individually handle the orange -- toss to each other, or anything you want -- but the orange must end up in the hands of the person who first held it. This is a timed exercise. The winning team accomplishes the task in the shortest length of time. You will have a few trials to improve your speed. ” Comments for Instructors This quick exercise works best if you avoid cueing students about the possibility of rolling or dropping the orange. The title and instructions create a mental model that assumes team members should toss the orange from one person to the next. In fact, this is not the most efficient method and the exercise does not limit the method in which all team members touch the orange. The most efficient way to satisfy the requirements of this exercise is to have team members use their hands to create a vertical tube. They should each have a few fingers sticking into the tube. Then, one person drops the orange through the tube so that it touches everyone and the person’s other hand is at the bottom of the tube to catch it. If there are some doubts about the meaning of “handle the orange”, then a second strategy is to create a slide for the orange. The slide consists of the cupped hands of five of the six team members held together so that the orange is rolled from the top set of hands to the bottom. The sixth person drops the orange onto the slide, then runs to the other end to catch it as it rolls down. Although balls or other round objects may be used, an orange or other semi-round fruit or vegetable (e. g. apple, lemon, potato) works best because students quickly identify balls with rolling. They are less likely to break out of the mental model of tossing where fruit or vegetables are involved. CLASS EXERCISE: CREATIVITY BRAINBUSTERS Purpose This exercise is designed to help students understand the dynamics of creativity and team problem solving. Instructions This exercise may be completed alone or in teams of three or four people, although the latter is more fun. If teams are formed, students who already know the solutions to these problems should identify themselves and serve as silent observers. When finished (or time is up), the instructor will review the solutions and discuss the implications of this exercise. In particular, be prepared to discuss what you needed to solve these puzzles and what may have prevented you from solving them more quickly (or at all). Comments for Instructors [NOTE: The PowerPoint file for this chapter includes slides that visually display the answers to these creativity brain busters.] Double Circle Problem. I have found that students are usually dumbfounded and don’t even try. How can you draw two circles with one line and no connection between them? Here’s the Answer: Draw the outer circle anywhere on the page. When finished, fold a corner of the paper over so that it lies on top of the circle and the paper edge is beside your pencil (see exhibit (a) below). Move the pencil across this folded over edge to a point inside the circle you just drew. Move the corner back to its original position and complete the second circle. Nine Dot Problem. (Note: This is sometimes known as the Eskimo puzzle because Inuit people apparently have less trouble solving them. The reason is that they have no fences, so their brain doesn’t restrict their solutions within the area of the dots. ) There are many ways to solve this puzzle. The first solution below (Exhibit (b)) is the most common. Solution (c) is somewhat questionable because the pencil doubles back across existing lines. Some might say that there are more than four lines, although we see only four lines. Nine Dot Problem Revisited. Some students will figure out the nine dot problem with four lines. Fewer will figure out the three line solution The most obvious solution is shown in (d) below. Now, ask students for a solution with FEWER than three lines. There are a few ways of doing this. Draw nine large dots on a very large piece of paper, then roll the paper into a large tube. Next, draw a single line on a slight angle from the top of one column of dots down and around the tube to the middle row, then around the tube again to the third column of dots. The result is shown in the third illustration below. If students suggest that this method would not cover the dots correctly, you could suggest that the paper could be so large that the angle becomes asymptotically minuscule. Also, you could keep the paper flat and draw a straight line twice around the Earth. Another way to pass a pencil line through all dots with a single straight line is to make the line wide enough to cover all of the dots. Some students might also consider folding the paper so that the dots are folded on top of each other. Then punch a hole with your pencil through all of the dots. It would be an unusual line, but it seems to fit within the protocol! Word Search Problem. The trick here is to correctly interpret the meaning of the instructions. May people tend to look for five letters that they can cross out. Instead, they should cross out the words “five letters” that are embedded in the row of letters. This leaves the word “creative. ” [Note: This exercise is fairly new, so it may be possible that students can cross out any five letters in the sequence to form a single word. However, we have not yet found this option.] Burning Ropes. This is a real challenge to most students in my class, but a few people get the solution. At time 0, light BOTH ends of one rope and one end of the second rope. The first rope will necessarily burn up in 30 minutes. When this is done, light the second end of the second rope. With 30 minutes of the second rope burned up, burning both ends of the remainder will take exactly 15 minutes. Some students suggest cutting the rope in half, but they forget that burn time is not equal across the rope. If you cut a rope in half and burn both ends of each, one might burn for five minutes and the other for 25 minutes (not necessarily 15 minutes each). Bonus Brain buster Roman Numeral Problem. Draw the roman numbers “IX” (without quote marks) on an overhead or whiteboard. Then say to students: “Here is the Roman numeral 9. Add only one line to create a six. ” Answer to Roman Numeral Problem: This puzzle can be solved by drawing an “S” in front of the “IX”. Alternatively, the solution could simply be to draw a “6”, because this a single line, too. A third solution requires a wide marker the same color as the paper on which the IX is written. Turn the paper upside down (so you see an XI). Now, draw a straight line across the bottom half of the two Roman numerals (thereby hiding them against the paper background). The result shows the Roman numeral “VI”. 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 Chapter 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 fulfill 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 fulfill 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. In the classroom, informal groups may form based on shared interests, study habits, or social dynamics. Students are motivated to belong to these groups for various reasons, including seeking support, collaboration, and social interaction. Informal groups provide opportunities for mutual assistance, sharing resources, and fostering a sense of belonging and camaraderie among peers. 2. The late management guru Peter Drucker once 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 challenges 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 behaviors 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 Kansas office to the Denver office of your company, a national sales organization of electrical products for developers and contractors. In Kansas, 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 Denver office, no one seemed to make these follow-up calls. A recently hired coworker explained that other coworkers discouraged her from making those calls. Later, another coworker suggested that your follow-up calls were making everyone else look lazy. Give three possible reasons why the norms in Denver might be different from those in the Kansas 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 behavior of their members. In the Denver office, employees have a norm of not bothering with follow-up sales calls, whereas the Kansas 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 Denver office. Employees suggested that you change your behavior. 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 Kansas might be different from those in the Denver office. a. Team leaders or senior management in the Kansas office might have explicitly stated the importance of follow-up calls, whereas this might not be happening in the Denver office. b. The Kansas 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 Denver 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 Kansas 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 Denver office was first formed, for instance, the employees brought to that office might have had weak customer service values. 5. A software engineer in the United States 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, 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. Potential limitations. Organizational behavior researchers warn that brainstorming has potential limitations: Brainstorming does not completely remove evaluation apprehension; employees still know that others are silently evaluating the quality of their ideas. Production blocking and related time constraints prevent all ideas from being presented. In addition research also indicates that in some situations, individuals working alone produce more potential solutions to a problem than if they work together brainstorming. 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 that many students argue that the main problem is “lack of supervision”. They cite that fact that this department does not have a supervisor regularly overseeing the team. There are a few problems with this argument. First, there is probably no theory (certainly not in this book) stating that the most effective teams are closely supervised. On the contrary, the highest-performing teams (self-directed teams) have no direct supervision at all. Second, this department performed relatively well in the past (they even won awards for their packaging quality), even though there was minimal supervision at that time. Third, direct supervision is a potential solution, not the theoretical foundation of a problem analysis. But, as noted below, direct supervision is a high cost solution. 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. Executives should implement clear communication channels, address underlying issues promptly, and foster a culture of accountability and transparency within the organization. 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) Team Goal Actual Result Profit/(Loss) Material Requirements (Number of pieces used) Engineering Proficiency (Height in centimeters) Labor Efficiency (Time in seconds) TOWER SPECIFICATIONS EFFECTIVENESS SHEET (PAGE 1) TOWER SPECIFICATIONS EFFECTIVENESS SHEET (PAGE 2) TEAM EXERCISE: HUMAN CHECKERS Purpose This exercise is designed to help students understand the importance and application of team dynamics and decision making. Materials None, but the instructor has more information about the team’s task. [Note: This exercise sometimes works better with two lines of tape on the floor to keep student teams in a straight line.] Task Description (read to students) Each team will develop and execute a strategy in which the four (4) team members on either side of an open space will move to the other side in the same final order (see exhibit on this page). [NOTE: The activity can be done well with six -- three people in each direction -- but is more typically completed with four in each direction.] Team members A, B, C, and D begin on the left side and must move to the right side in the same order. Team members W, X, Y, and Z will begin on the right side of the open space and must move to the left side in the same order (see Exhibit below). Spaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Start W End W Instructions (provided in textbook) Step 1: Form teams with eight students. (NOTE: Larger or smaller teams may be formed, but all teams must be the same size and have the same number of people on each side. ) If possible, each team should have a private location where team members can plan and practice the required task without being observed or heard by other teams. Step 2: All teams will receive special instructions in class about the team’s assigned task. All teams have the same task and will have the same amount of time to plan and practice the task. At the end of this planning and practice, each team will be timed while completing the task in class. The team that completes the task in the least time wins. Step 3: No special materials are required or allowed for this exercise. Although the task is not described here, students should learn the following rules for planning and implementing the task: Rule #1: You cannot use any written form of communication or any props to assist in the planning or implementation of this task. Rule #2: You may speak to other students in your team at any time during the planning and implementation of this task. Rule #3: When performing the task, you must move only in the direction of your assigned destination. In other words, you can only move forward, not backwards. Rule #4: When performing the task, you can move forward to the next space, but only if it is vacant (see Exhibit 1 in textbook). Rule #5: When performing the task, you can move forward two spaces, if that space is vacant. In other words, you can move around a student who is one space in front of you to the next space if that space is vacant (see Exhibit 2 in textbook). Step 4: When all teams have completed their task, the class will discuss the implications of this exercise for organizational behavior. Comments for Instructors This exercise is also called “Traffic Jam”. Halfway through the planning stage, it may be useful to advise students that the task can be completed in less than 20 seconds. This makes some teams rethink their strategy. The exercise offers plenty of fun and challenge. However, be prepared to use up an entire 45 minute class for this exercise with some time for debriefing. It usually takes teams up to 30 minutes to figure out the solution and to improve their efficiency in the task. Then, time is required for each team to demonstrate and compete. Discussion Questions 1. Identify team dynamics and decision making concepts that the team applied to complete this task. Answer: Human checkers is an exciting exercise that relates to several topics in team dynamics and decision making. It relates to teams because the planning and practice stage involves team development and performance. also, it is interesting to observe teams where students have not worked together previously (low team development) compared with teams of students that have worked together on other projects or activities (higher team development). Creativity and decision making are relevant because the team must figure out how to get everyone to the opposite side within the constraints indicated. Some students might note that they are not as good at either figuring out the method or synchronizing as well as other people in the team. Team competencies also play a role, such as managing conflict when team members disagree over the best way to solve the challenge. 2. What personal theories of people and work teams were applied to complete this task? Answer: This is a subjective question in which students reveal their personal theories. It is useful to identify the types of theories that emerge, that is, which topics (leadership, individual performance, etc. ) are mentioned most often. The personal theories of motivation, leadership, teamwork, and communication were applied to understand individual and team dynamics, set goals, allocate tasks effectively, and ensure collaboration towards task completion. 3. What other organizational behavior issues occurred, and what actions were (or should have been) taken to solve them? Answer: Several OB problems potentially emerge. Team dynamics are most often mentioned. Conflict sometimes occurs. Leadership may be an issue where one person dominates the process too much. Communication breakdowns and role ambiguity were apparent. To address these, regular team meetings for clarifications and feedback, and establishing clear communication protocols would have been beneficial. Human Checkers Solution There are likely several solutions to this exercise, but the solution below is the most common. Keep in mind that although the solution is sequential, students speed up this process by completing two or more of these steps at the same time. For example, moves M4, M5, and M6 can be done at the same time -- B, C, and D move in the same direction when they move out of their previous space TEAM EXERCISE: MIST RIDGE Purpose This exercise is designed to help students understand the dynamics and benefits of team decision making over individual decision making. Instructions Students are asked to rank the 15 items shown in the chart following the exercise according to their importance (most valuable for remaining comfortable in case of problems when hiking Mist Ridge trail in Kananaskis Provincial Park). In the “Individual Ranking” column, students indicate the most important item with “1,” going through to “15” for the least important. They should keep in mind the reasons why each item is or is not important. The instructor will then form small teams (typically five members) and each team will rank order the items in the second column. Team rankings should be based on consensus, not simply averaging the individual rankings. When the teams have completed their rankings, the instructor will provide the expert’s ranking, which is provided on the next page of this instructor’s manual. Students enter the expert’s ranking in the third column. Next, each student will compute the absolute difference (i. e. , ignore minus signs) between the individual ranking and the expert’s ranking, record this information in column four, and sum the absolute scores. In column five, they record the absolute difference between the team’s ranking and the expert’s ranking, and sum these absolute scores. these calculations are followed by a class discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of individual versus team decision making. Comments to Instructors (Prepared by Richard Field and Nicola Sutton) The Mist Ridge exercise is set in southwestern Alberta, Canada. It looks very much like a lot of other survival exercises (Lost on the Moon, Lost at Sea, Subarctic Survival, etc. ), but it is not. In fact, the key to this exercise is that it is an everyday, normal kind of decision. You and a few friends are going out for a hike (a long one), and you have to decide what to take with you. In reality, most if not all people would opt for light loads and an enjoyable day. There is really no danger here. Even if it snows, it is August 23rd, and the snow won't stay around for long. It's not going to drop down to -30 degrees at the end of August. Animals are likely not much of a threat. The biggest one is surprising a mother bear and getting between her and her cubs. Look out! Most hikers advise making a lot of noise while walking so the animals know you are coming and can get out of the way. The beauty of this exercise is that your students will have done exercises of the survival type and will automatically assume that this one is of the genre. They will quickly fall into "survival mode" and make decisions to carry a tent, sleeping bags, etc. that they would never do in real life. You will find that your student groups fall easily into two bunches: The groups in survival mode and the realists. I would also expect some argument at the end of the exercise when you give them the expert answers because they just can't accept that this is not a survival situation. All this gives you a good chance to discuss the assumptions that groups make and the process errors that they get into. You will find some groups that do better than the individuals in them. This is because in a task where more information helps, adding group members should improve the decision that is made. However, I have found that even in Alberta there are very few students that have hiked in the mountains. Therefore, I have had many groups doing this exercise with little to no expert knowledge in the group. In this case adding group members does not help the group to make better decisions because all you are adding is people, not information. This is another good point that you can make about groups. Sometimes adding more members just doesn't help. Mist Ridge Exercise: Expert Rankings According to six members of Skyline Hikers of the Canadian Rockies, the correct ranking of the 15 items is as follows. Item Expert Ranking Reasoning Canteen with water 3 This may be carried full or empty and filled at any time with water. Water is required to protect against dehydration as you will sweat even if the ambient temperature is cool. There is no water on the ridge. Dehydration is dangerous as it increases your chances of sunstroke and hypothermia. Matches 13 You are not supposed to light a fire in a National Park. Matches will be of little use to you on the ridge, in any case, as there is no wood. However, in an emergency, matches may be of more use to you than the remaining two items. Compass 7 The trail may live up to its name and become covered in mist, meaning that a compass will be required to help you get back out again Hat 6 To protect you from the sun or for heat retention should you remain out over night. Repair kit (short length of cord, string, duct tape, and shoelaces) 8 To fix a broken pack, belt, or shoelace, this kit may be useful. It also contains materials that could be used for making splints, etc. in case of an emergency First aid kit (blister protection and aspirin) 5 In case someone is injured or blisters become a problem, this will be required in order to walk back out. Five sleeping bags 14 These are bulky and unnecessary because you are dressed warmly and have rain gear that may be used for protection from the elements if the need arises. The plan is to have a day hike, and sleeping bags will slow you down too much Sunglasses 12 You already have a hat so these are mostly a duplication. Flashlight 11 May be of some use on the way back should you be out longer than you expect. In the valley the light will fade quickly and you may need a light to keep on the trail. Topographic map and Kananaskis Country Trail guide book 1 The Guide Book tells you not only how to get to the trail but also gives you explicit directions on how to follow it. It also provides you with a detailed description of what to expect on your trail hike. The topographic map is an excellent supplement to the Guide Book to help you keep on the unmarked trail. Food 4 It is a long day and a strenuous hike. For psychological reasons and to keep your group together, you will want to be able to stop along the way and enjoy a meal before continuing. 5-person tent with waterproof fly 15 This is heavy, and again will only slow you down. Again, you have with you rain gear which can double as a wind break if you need it overnight. If you must stay out overnight, you will just have to huddle together until first light when you can walk out to your car. Sunscreen 10 Not as important because you already have a hat with you to protect you from the sun Rain gear 2 This will protect you from rain, snow, and wind, all of which are likely on a trail such as this at this time of year. It may also be used as a wind break on the ridge and as a stretcher in case of an emergency Insect repellent 9 Probably only required in the stretch of trail that is down in the valley amongst the trees. 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 Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge, Global Reality Steven McShane, Mary Von Glinow 9780077862589, 9781259280634, 9781259562792, 9780071077989