D3rply
Disc 3 – Rep
Instructions: At least 250 words; ach reply must incorporate the textbook, at least 1 peer-reviewed source, and Scripture, citing and referencing your sources in current APA format.
Reply 1: Rebens F
During almost 30 years of work experience, I had the privilege of being part of many groups and teams both at school and at work. Each of those experiences were unique and context specific. For example, in some situations I was the manager of the team, in others I was a staff member. Also, in some cases the groups were globally diverse while in others they represented only one specific country. For this specific post, I will focus on my experience as a student on my first doctoral program at the George Washington University. To make a long story short, I was an international student at the time and with a few other international students I was learning English and also to navigate the US culture. The groups that I joined, as most international students, were very diverse and I had the privilege of meeting very smart and good people. If we consider that performance at school is often measured as a grade or as passing an oral examination, I was lucky that we always had great performance. The way we worked together was not always great though and could have been better in many instances. Per concepts presented by Spector (2021), the ones that resonated most with the specific school work teams were related to unclear norms, lack of cohesiveness, unbalanced commitment (i.e., with some working more than others). In particular, social loafing was present and reflected cultural differences between individualist and collectivist cultures. Group thinking was also often present in many of the teams I was part of during my career, including the specific example I am describing above from my school years.
In terms of recommendations to improve, it would have been helpful to have: 1. Established ground rules (norms) from start; 2. Taken a bit more time to build cohesiveness in the group; 3. Clarified cultural differences and expectations from the beginning; 4. Divided better the work among team members; 5. Created simple heuristics to minimize the impact of group thinking. In terms of cultural differences (or global diversity), Hofstede in his National Culture (n.d.) site offer some great insights in terms of national cultures and the team could have explored such as we were from many different countries or represented diverse cultures within the same country. Interesting enough, even though the team did not function perfectly, as I mentioned previously, the results (or performance) was achieved with maximum grades (i.e., perfect performance).
This fact brings to mind that in some collectivist cultures, sometimes results are measured both in terms of achievements (or outcomes, impact) as well as how well the team worked together (e.g., quality of relationships). Thus, the question for discussion today is: How do you consider (if at all) team dynamics in how you measure performance? Finally, a Christian worldview relate to productive group behaviors by helping create boundaries or implicit norms where the “what” (results/performance) is not dissociated with the “how” (i.e., those implicit norms). And, in the long run, valuing people in teams or groups, should lead to sustainable performance with such a Christian worldview. According to the scriptures (Proverbs 4), God taught us the way of wisdom and the paths of uprightness and both go hand in hand when working in teams.
References
Spector, P. E. (2021). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (8th ed.). Wiley. ISBN: 9781119805311.
National culture. (n.d.). Hofstede insights. https://hi.hofstede-insights.com/national-culture Links to an external site.
English Standard Version (2016). Crossway Bibles. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%204&version=ESV (Original work published 2001)
Reply 2. Milorad t
Teams work towards a common aim, with each member contributing their specialized role, while coordinating actions among each other (Spector, 2021). This is different than a work group, where there is less interaction, mostly independent work, and only some shared goals. Spector describes seven concepts that are critical to understanding how teams work. Roles, norms, and cohesiveness help to explain how a team functions. Conflict and process loss contribute to lower team performance. Finally, commitment and mental models are valuable when coordinating work within a team.
I currently work on a software development team. Our team is mostly made up of consultants from our company, and one team member from the client. The roles within the team are well-defined. We have a product manager who prioritizes work for the team, and represents the team within the broader organization. Our technical lead is responsible for understanding how our team efforts fit into the broader technology used within the entire company. The remaining team members developers, who work together to design, implement, and test the software we are building.
Our team has explicit norms that we follow, defined and document by the team and signed by team members. When we meet, how we discuss work, and how we function on a weekly cadence are all laid out. Even with these explicit ways of working, there are also unwritten norms within the team. Team members feel empowered to add their thoughts to any discussion, whether or not they have knowledge or skills in that area.
At the surface, team cohesiveness is generally high. There is a generally strong force keeping the group together (Spector, 2021). There are two splits that I do observe, though. First, there is a separation between the consultants and the team member employed by the client. He is not in a lead role on this team. As such, he goes against team norms, such as working on items outside our list of priorities. The second split I see is in how people view what is most important. The more senior team members are driven to do great work for the client, delivering value frequently and rapidly. The more junior team members prioritize sharing their feelings with the team.
Considering a 40-hour workweek, our team has over 20% process loss. Process loss is the effort that goes into keeping a team on track, which is outside of the tasks the team needs to complete (Spector, 2019). We meet every day for 20-minute discussions of the work, two hours weekly for refinement and understanding of the work, and one hour per week to retrospect on how to improve the team's performance. We also have a meeting of only consultants, a one-on-one meeting with managers, and a meeting of the leads on the project. One of the improvements we could make is to incorporate more performance data, such as the amount of work completed and the length of time to complete work.
Spector (2021) cites Mohammed and Dumville's 2001 paper defining a team's mental model as the shared understanding about the work, the team, and the circumstances. This team shares a common model of the tasks ahead. However, the team has varied models of the circumstances, with some focused on the short-term delivery of the software while others are focused on the long-term maintenance of the systems. While we have avoided groupthink, where everyone coalesces around the leaders ideas (Spector, 2021), we have experienced some polarization which has slowed down our decision making process.
The Bible calls on us take on every task "with all your might," and even then warns that chance will also contribute to the results (ESV Bible, 2001, Ecclesiastes 9:10-11). This team has approached our work with this might. The polarization is a sign of the commitment to doing an excellent job, even if viewed through an opposing lens of values. This team exhibits many of the traits of a team, and rates as one of the more enjoyable teams I have had the honor of working with.
References
English Standard Version Bible (ESV). (2001). ESV Online. https://www.esv.org/ Links to an external site.
Spector, P. E. (2021). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. 8th Edition. Wiley.