Team Process

Anmerkungen:

• After form team + team charter, do 1) plans for achieving team goals (specify task + deadline, assign task, dvp metric + budget) 2) establish rules + norms 3) kick off with launch meeting 

1. Establish goals, team rules & norms
   1. What it is

      Anmerkungen:

      • team norms = regular behavior + interaction patterns of members  --formed through explicit discussion/emerge spontaneously   -- appropiateness of subsequent behavior evaluated by comparing -> norm   team rules - principles/regulations governing team member's behavior + interaction -- written + established
   2. How?

      Anmerkungen:

      • advance agreement of basic logistics (source of conflict)  - attendance -participation - confidentiality - preparation expectation decide roles + responsibility - e.g sucessful team = member does fair share work & contributes in concrete way  - fair share of work? - contribute in conrete way? - everyone involved in high relevance task? decide integrative mechanism + group process (coordination, comm, decision making, fdback + review)
2. Launch Meeting

   Anmerkungen:

   • objectives -> launch meeting - establish team membership - explain charter + contents - seek unanimous understanding of charter - explain why team work is impt + how goals fit larger org obj - describe resources available -> team + nonteam - describe team incentives - make introductions (pp X know each other and their work)
3. Develop Team
   1. Forming

      Anmerkungen:

      • Forming: occurs when form team member get to know each other better no-one offended yet indv driven to be accepted by others + avoid controversy/conflict team learns opp+ challenges= agree on goal + tackle tasks
   2. Storming

      Anmerkungen:

      • Storming: team open up about issues (e.g problems to solve, how funtion, what leadership model accepted) member open up = share ideas + perspective conflict might arise  -- slient leaders clashing ctrl grp = destructive phrase + lower motivation of group if out of ctrl
   3. Norming

      Anmerkungen:

      • Norming: team work well together - hv 1 goal/mutual plan - give and take for team to function - express critism constructively - members= responsible + aim for success of goals (team cohesion, spirits + goals)
   4. Performing

      Anmerkungen:

      • Performing: team fn as unit + find ways get job done smoothly + effectively w/o inapprioate conflict + need -> supervision team = highly motivated + knowledgable  members = competent + autonomous team = complete + self direction, need little mng direction
   5. Ajourning

      Anmerkungen:

      • adjourning: deforming stage - dissolution group - task compelete/ reduce dependency - roles terminate - exp bittersweet accomplishment + reluctance say bye - r'n X end when team disband
4. Meetings
   1. functions

      Anmerkungen:

      • fn meeting: define team platform -> group revise, update + add to what knows as group help indv understand collective aim group + how they can contribute -> group success creates commitment -> decisions + obj it pursues for those there - only ocassion team exist + work as group - status arena
   2. Agenda

      Anmerkungen:

      • X make unnecessarily brief + vauge -- reasons -> topic to be discussed (can use headings) hand out in advance prepare in advance to be useful 
      1. roles

         Anmerkungen:

         • chairman - ctrl meeting scribe - recording (impt decision, open question, assignment) facilitator - make sure meeting productive -- stay focused -- everyone participates -- consensus builiding critic- pay devil's advocate
         1. chairman

            Anmerkungen:

            • ctrl garrulous draw out silent -- silence of diffidence -- silence of hostility protect weak encourage clash ideas watch out for suggestion squashing relfex come to most senior pp last close on note of achievement
      2. timing consideration

         Anmerkungen:

         • timing to consider: - early parts more lively+creative - items unite vs divide (end on divide note?) - allocate time estimation for each agenda - limit -> at most 2 hrs - indicate start + end times on agenda
   3. Objectives

      Anmerkungen:

      • 4 categories -> agenda iteams 1) information-digestion -- purely information (X conclusion, action/decision) 2) constructive-originative -- what shall we do? -- ask pp contribute -> knowledge/experience/judgement/ideas of sth new 3) executive responsibility -- how to do it? -- distribute responsibility -> diff task 4) legislative framework -- sys of rules, routines +procedures in and through all activites takes place
   4. Components

      Anmerkungen:

      • frequency - degree unity of group composition - diverse indiv w/ common interest -> realize goals motivation - have common goal vs competing r'n? decision process - how meeting group reach decision?
   5. review norms

      Anmerkungen:

      • set up rules + norms = allow continious reflection of team actively manage midpoint -- midpoint = team culture is effective means of coordinating but regulating behavior = inhibit creativity + adaptability --"punctuated equiliabrium" = most potent time change rules + norms is around midpoints --explicit dicussion of what and how to change = impt

1. team size

   Anmerkungen:

   • - optimal number of members - work best w/ steamlined # of members - too few better than too many -- cuz coord loss increase w/ more members
2. characters
   1. team sponsor

      Anmerkungen:

      • A manager or executive who       –  has a stake in a the outcome –  accountable to the team’s performance        –  has authority to define scope of work, provide resources, approve/reject team output.–  champion team’s goal at the highest level      
   2. team leader

      Anmerkungen:

      • Role: -make sure team carry out task
      1. role

         Anmerkungen:

         • make sure team carry out tasks Expected job: - providing framework for team’s activities - keep the vision clear  - coordinate activities - represent the team to others - identify + ensure resources + supportive structures - mediate conflicts - set milestones - ensure everyone contributes + benefits - keep work on track - assess and manage risks, - negotiate with external stakeholders - pitch in as working member                              
      2. characteristics

         Anmerkungen:

         • - set direction that others will follow - good communication skills - give and receive feedback - high standards for performance       - Positive attitude towards team-based work + exp with it    
      3. how to choose

         Anmerkungen:

         • Different types : - leader assemble and launch the team            - someone -> formal leadership role after team formed + launched                              - Multiple leaders                         - emersion of informal leader --------------------------------- Which to choose?  Optimal leadership structure = team circumstances including membership, work to be accomplished, and other factors All members should have a shared understanding of the leadership structure    
   3. team members

      Anmerkungen:

      • way get: - Assignment - voluntary - nomination    
      1. indiv skills

         Anmerkungen:

         • find people with right skills 1) analyze task + see what skills needed - sort of acitivities that make up work - components -> person to be accountable- determine what skills needed -> work 2) choose individuals with right skills- team collectively all the necessary skills- X overemphasize tech skills- interpersonal skills can help team success- access pp's collaborative skill + plan team involvement
      2. diversity

         Anmerkungen:

         • - levels and types of diversity needed -> work  - extent need draw pp of diff fn expertise, educational background+work experiences - more complex task=more diverse members - balance btwn homogenous+heterogenous members                           e.g. - large software- diverse personalities contribute to better performance - smaller software  -- personality heterogeneity btwn team leader + team member -- social interaction + information gathering afect performance -- personality amongst team members is ...?                          
         1. personality

            Anmerkungen:

            • - Social dimension:Extrovert vs Introvert - Information gathering dimension: Sensing vs Intuitivie- Decision making:Thinking vs Feeling- Dealing w/ external world:Judging vs Perceving
         2. professional orientation

            Anmerkungen:

            • Technical  -IS staff commitment, careful planning +structured techniques Enduser - believe end user critical role as part of software system sociopolitical - focus on dealing w/ diff end user personalities + system failure -- associate w/ turnover among end user + top mng
      3. defining roles
   4. facilitator
3. team charter

   Anmerkungen:

   • - spell out nature of work + senior mng expectation -> results - objectives -- prevent team -> heading to direction X aligned w/ org obj -- forces senior mng to clearly articulate what team should do contains written document with following elements...

   Anlagen:

   • Team Charter
4. aligning behaviors through rewards

   Anmerkungen:

   • - compensation sys -> team operations: shape team member's effort + collobaration - tension= rewarding indv contribution + collective output of team if X align  - org use combi - team +individual rewards = achieve indv motivation + group collaboration -- match lvl reward interdependence -> interdependence of task -  E.g. recognize exceptional teamwork , profit sharing to award extra compensation -> high profitability, gainsharing -> improvements in productivity

1. Roots of Conflict
   1. Winning: Competition
   2. Sharing : Resources
   3. Control: Power
   4. Working: Task and process conflict
   5. LIke/Dislike: Personal
2. Conflict Resolution
   1. hard
   2. soft
   3. Principled integrative solution
   4. Mediators
   5. Clear misperception
   6. Cooperation & Conflict

1. 4 Traits
2. Productivity loss
   1. Evaluation Apprehension
   2. Social Loafing
   3. Production blocking
   4. Social Comparison
   5. Over-estimation of group
   6. Disadvantage
3. alternatives
   1. Nominal
   2. Delphi
   3. Electronic brainstorming
4. Case Study: Ideo
   1. Support Organization Memory
   2. Provide Skill variety
   3. Supporting attitudes of wisdom
   4. Creating status auction
   5. Impressing Clients
   6. Providing income

1. Learning Curves
   1. differences
2. Team Learning factors
3. Learning Mechansisms
   1. Shared Cognition
      1. Shared Knowledge of Task
      2. Shared Knowledge of Team
      3. Task Awareness
      4. Precense awareness
   2. Help Facilitate
      1. Context
      2. Team Climate
      3. Shared Learning Goals
      4. Team identification
4. Organizational Forgetiing
   1. Accident Forgetting
      1. Memory Decay
      2. Failure to capture
   2. Intentional Forgetting
      1. Unlearning
      2. Avoiding bad habits
5. Performance Evaluation
   1. Team Evaluation
   2. Team Evaluation

1. challenges
   1. managing virtual team
      1. distributed work
         1. lack mutual knowledge
            1. direct knowledge
            2. interactional dynamics
            3. category membership
         2. lack interaction
         3. lack awareness
         4. lack control
         5. time zone difference
         6. culture differences
         7. higher cost
   2. technology
2. examples

1. Social Facilitation

   Anmerkungen:

   • enahnce indv performance when working with other pp than working alone
   1. theory

      Anmerkungen:

      • Zajonc's theory - refer to lecture
   2. reason for occuring
      1. drive

         Anmerkungen:

         • others = evoke drive state characterized by increase readiness + arousal)
      2. motivation

         Anmerkungen:

         • evaluation apprension: indv concern on how other evaluate them = faciilitate performance on simple well learned task - self presentation: make good impression when work w/ others
      3. cognitive

         Anmerkungen:

         • distraction conflict theory: others present - attention divided btw pp + task. attention increase motivation + facilitate performance -> simple task
      4. personality

         Anmerkungen:

         • social orientation: indv differences -> social orietnation (tendency to approach social situation apprehensively w/ enthusiasm) predict when social facilitation occur
   3. Ringelman Effect

      Anmerkungen:

      • tendancy -> group to be less productive as group size increases occur due to social loafing + coordination losses . Findings: major causes -> projectivity loss working on addictive loss = pp think they are working in groups but not. if working alone = suffer from motivation loss. 
      1. motivation loss

         Anmerkungen:

         • - social loafing : reduction of individual working in groups - pp dont work as hard as they could when part of group - "trust neighbour to finish desired effort, while he get carried along" - in physical + mental task - loafing = X recognized by group members (X admit or X know)
         1. Reasons

            Anmerkungen:

            • - reduce drive (other = cotarget) - reduced identifiability/ evaluation (hide in crowd= not id, lost in crowd = no fair credit -> performance) - matching of effort w/ coworkers (expect them to slack so reduce efforts so equal) countered by social compensation (increase collective effort = expect co-works perform poorly) - self attention (decrease self awareness, disregard salient performance standards+ engage in less self regulation)
         2. Reducing social loafing
            1. increase identifiability

               Anmerkungen:

               • - make indv output identifiable = emphasize importance + unique of indv contribution - min group size - clear & specific id - challenging but attainable
            2. increase involvement

               Anmerkungen:

               • - more involved = less likely to loaf cuz enjoy group experience/achievement  - social compensation: grades at stake = work harder to compensate then reduce (e.g grades and loafing member)
            3. increase id in group

               Anmerkungen:

               • -derive sense of self + identity <- membership, social loafing reflect by social laboring as members put more effort -work harder when think it is impt to us rather than just me
            4. collective effort model

               Anmerkungen:

               • group lvl of motivation depends - expectation of reach goal - value of reach goal
      2. coordinatinon loss

         Anmerkungen:

         • two heads better than one, but too many cooks spoil the broth depends on task demands (combination process by process which depends on 1) divisbility of task, 2) output need 3) combination rules to finish task)
   4. Types of Task
      1. divisible

         Anmerkungen:

         • Qualities - subsomponents identified + assigned to specific members Examples: preparing 6 cours meal, soccer Productivity effect: better than worst: performance superior if subtask match to member capabilities
      2. unitary

         Anmerkungen:

         • Qualities: task X have subcomponent Examples: read book Productivity effect: equal to worst- performance equal to performance of least capable member
      3. maximising

         Anmerkungen:

         • Qualitles: quantity: more produced , better performance Example: generate ideas
      4. optimizing

         Anmerkungen:

         • Quality: Quality: correct/optimal answer needed Example: dvp best answer
      5. addictive

         Anmerkungen:

         • Quality: indv inputs added tgt Example:shovelling snow Productivity effect: better than best. group exceeds performance of best indv member
      6. compensatory

         Anmerkungen:

         • Quality: decision made by avg individual decision Example: estimate pig weight <- 3 pp + avg answer Productivity effect: better than most . exceed performance of substantial # of indv members
      7. disjunctive

         Anmerkungen:

         • Quality: select solution from pool of solutions/products Examp;e: picking 1 person answer to be answer Productivity effect: better than avg- sometimes equal best. group perform best if accept most capable member input as group solution. group rarely perform better than best member
      8. conjuntive

         Anmerkungen:

         • Quality: - all group contribute to product to be complete Example: Eating meal as a group Productivity effect:equal to worst- performance equal to performance of least capable member OR better than worst: performance superior if subtask match to member capabilities
      9. discretionary

         Anmerkungen:

         • Quality: group decides how individaul input relate to group product Example: choosing how to vote Productivity effet: performance depends on combination rules by group
   5. process loss

      Anmerkungen:

      • Ivan Steiner:  actual productivity= potential productivity - losses owning to faculty process process losses - losses due to faculty group processes
2. Group polarization

   Anmerkungen:

   • risky shift in decision occurs when there was communication amongst group members - risk as value : moderate risk valued in american culture so pp shift towards riskier decision to gain status+ approve from other group members - cautious shift: shift make less risky decision than individual Group polarization: tendancy for members to move to a more extreme position w/ direction of shift determined by majority of member's preference
   1. causes
      1. social comparison

         Anmerkungen:

         • pp motivated present themself in desirable light - outdo each other in socially valued direction -achieve comparison btwn perred position + position thought to be favored by others
      2. persuasive argument

         Anmerkungen:

         • - arriving at position based on known arguments for + vs issues underlying position. change position as expose to arguments from others -- pp exposed to new/valid from others supporting collective position, will change position -> direction of collective position
3. Groupthink

   Anmerkungen:

   • mode thinking - pp engage that show deeply involved -> cohesive ingroup when member -> unimity result: override motivation to realistically appraise alternative course of action - group fallen into groupthink = planning fiasoces+making wrong decision but members think everything okay - confidence power help combat units reach obj but cut analytical thinking -> decision making groups
   1. challenges

      Anmerkungen:

      • how to address issues of  - shared info bias - group polarization - group think how to address these issues?
      1. make use of group polarization

         Anmerkungen:

         • • Detrimental      – Racial attitudes/conflicts, investments in failing business ventures • Beneficial                –  Discussions on social work, donations          –  Break deadlocks when making political decisions, jury decisions, investment decisions                  –  Promote innovation and entrepreneurship via risk taking    
      2. avoid common bias info

         Anmerkungen:

         •        experienced members often intervene to focus groups attention on unshared data  spend more time discussing decisions                  increase diversity of opinions within the group                  felt competence & appreciation of the value of one’s unshared information can promote the contribution of unique information     use of leaders & facilitators to keep check of unshared information can help promote the contribution and discussion of unique information throughout the discussion                  use of technology (Group Decision Support Systems) to help catalogue ideas, systematically review alternative actions and outcomes    
      3. Prevent Group Think

         Anmerkungen:

         •        • Limitprematureseekingofconcurrence • Ensureadequateconsiderationofalternatives – Encourage dissension and critical evaluation – Appoint devil’s advocate • Avoidcontamination – Include people from outside – Work in subgroups • Reduceconformitypressures –  Avoid public votes –  Minimize role of leader –  Encourage self-criticisms and voicing of doubts and opinions    
   2. causes
      1. group cohesion

         Anmerkungen:

         • -cohesiveness cuz unspoken understanding + ability work tgt w/ minimal explaination
      2. structural faults of group

         Anmerkungen:

         • group isolation leader intimidation absence of decision making procedures
      3. provocative situational context

         Anmerkungen:

         • high stress <- external threats low self esteem
   3. symptoms
      1. overestimate group

         Anmerkungen:

         • illusion of invulnerability  - excessive optism encourage taking extreme risk illusion of morality (believe rightness of cause + ignore ethical + moral consequences of decision)
      2. close mindeness

         Anmerkungen:

         • collective rationalization (discount warning+ X reconsider assumption) stereotypes abt outgroup (negative view of enemy effective responses to conflict uncessary)
      3. pressure twd confirmity

         Anmerkungen:

         • self censorship (doubt + deviation from percieved group consensus = X expressed) illustion of unanimity ( majority views+judgement) direct pressure -> dissenters(under pressure not to go against group views) self appointed mindguards (guard group+leader <- info = problematic+contradictory -> group cohesiveness)
4. common information bias

   Anmerkungen:

   • shared information discuss most of time while unshared = not discussed hidden profile: superior info held uniquely by group member= held from group refer to CIS model + its assumption
   1. reasons

      Anmerkungen:

      • -dual purpose of discussion --info influence: individual marshal evidence + info need to make good decision --normative influence: members to -influence opinons on issue - discussing unshared info = enlightening to reach consensus - member motivated make good impression --est reputation --secure bonds of attraction --compete with others - bias stronger --group anxious -> closure when strive to make best decision --working on task X hv correct solution = goal of group to reach agreement than right answer -- group think X hv enough info to make informed decision